> > I agree with your first sentence but it all goes wrong from there.
> > Secular morality isn't about respecting each other's wants.  People
> > have all sorts of crazy wants.  Nothing in game theory suggests that I
> > should respect a paedophiles want to rape a child.  So your argument
> > rests on a faulty supposition.

> Actually I'm ok with most of it. The problem lies in what is are
> "benign theist beliefs"? Walt assumes they exist because he shuts his
> eyes to the ways that the mere belief in god is faulty and malicious.

> Also, Walt over simplifies the relationship between moderate theists
> and extreme theists and misses how the former lends support to the
> latter.

> Take the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and the most liberal
> unitarian Christian. You might not expect the fundamentalist to be
> able to derive any sort of support of the liberal. Yet it is easy to
> imagine:

> Let's say fundamentalism can be rated on a scale of 1 to 100 with 1
> being theists you never hear about because they aren't being rabidly
> evangelical and generally keep their religion to themselves and 100
> being Falwell.

> Now, putting a 1 and a 100 together will highlight obvious differences
> and they probablly will argue and fight as much as any atheist vs.
> theist. But that's not how it works, despiute Walt's attempts to
> depict it that way.

> Distribution of theist population on this scale would most likely be a
> bell curve, putting more people in the center (50) than at either
> extreme.

> Another concept to introduce is "birds of a feather flock together"
> Religion is a social group and groupings will most likely have those
> of similar fundamental ratings.

> And finally there is the fact that the fundamentalists get a
> disproportionate amount of media. They are more vocal and active.

> Put these together and you have a 100 in a group with some 99's, more
> 98's, even more 97's, etc. etc. Now, the 99 won't agree with
> everything the 100 says, but 99% of it. The 99s lend support to the
> 100s, the 98s to the 99s, the 97s to the 96s, and so one. Since the
> higher up you go the more vocal you go, it will appear that the 100s
> are in charge.

> But that's all just appearances, right? No. Being so alike in thought
> a 99 will agree with, and pretty act in according with the beliefs of
> the 100, because their beliefs are pretty much the same. Where they
> differ the difference is slight and, being more vocal and active, it
> is no small task for the 100 to convince the 99 that his way is right,
> even if only temporarily. This goes down the chain from 99 to 98, from
> 98 to 97, etc. etc. Now, at some point it fizzles out, but by that
> time you will have had an extreme minority (the 100s) having had
> influence a larger, less extreme population (99-).

> The problem is, given the smooth, gradual spectrum you just can
> eliminate one portion. Take away all the 100s and you've just merely
> created NEW 100s (the old 99s) on a recalibrated scale.

> Lastly, appearances are significant, especially in the views of the
> 100s. Even if their extreme directives do not filter down to the 1s,
> the lack of response (positive or negative) from the lower extremes is
> simply assumed to be tacit consent. They think themselves as having
> the support of all, and act accordingly.

> Even outside religious concerns Walts description of secular morality
> is crude, at best. Stealing a candy has little effect on society.
> Candy bars are numerous and cheap, so stealing one doesn't
> significantly affect the wants of any other people. Thus, according to
> Walt's morality here, we should not make stealing candybars a crime.
> The issue here is that Walt is only considering single instances and
> evaluating them isolated from other concerns. Rather he should be
> evaluating things as what would happen if everyone was allowed to do
> it.