1stAmendervsJay Dyer

Dyer argued that Christianity's history in Western civilisation, Byzantium, Russia and other Christian cultures shows an overall net good for society.

Dyer said Christianity has a transcendent basis beyond the here and now and beyond pleasure, which he argued is needed to ground the good beyond political power and individual desire.

Dyer argued that the good is connected to the true, and both to transcendental categories that give a foundation for judging beliefs and for the common good.

Dyer argued that declining societies often had a degenerate elite who opened borders to cheap labour for economic gain, undercutting existing peoples (ethnos).

Dyer argued that a purely secular approach has no foundation for what the good or the common good is, so it rests on will to power, state fiat or social construction.

Dyer cited Mao's purges and the Bolshevik campaign under Lenin as secular attempts to wipe out existing culture.

Dyer argued that without transcendent categories of truth, the good and normativity, secular ethics cannot say why one ought to follow truth or the common good over self-interest.

Dyer argued that in secular, Leninist and Maoist systems the highest good (GDP, the party or the state) is arbitrary, with no philosophical way to choose between them.

Dyer argued that Christian civilisation sustained a sound gold-standard economic policy over a thousand years, and that this success came from its transcendent basis.

1stAmender argued the proposition is not arguable, because many societies that called themselves Christian produced bad results.

1stAmender said Christianity opposes logic, reason and scientific inquiry in favour of belief in a supernatural creator.

1stAmender cited the Crusades, which he said were fought repeatedly over about 200 years and killed Muslims, Jews and other Christians for land.

1stAmender listed the Salem witch trials, Henry VIII's persecutions and religious wars, with Islam as a reaction to them, as examples of religion's harms.

1stAmender argued that secular humanism encourages questioning beliefs and revising conclusions when evidence shows, whereas Christianity keeps rules such as spanking and slavery regardless of their results.

1stAmender said secular humanism grounds ethics in minimising human suffering and promoting well-being, autonomy and flourishing for each individual.

1stAmender argued that secular humanism accepts many worldviews: Christians can live in a secular society, but a secular humanist would face serious hostility in a Christian one.

1stAmender concluded that secular humanism is the better choice for society.

Dyer asked whether logic and reason exist in the world and what they are, pressing 1stAmender on whether his appeals to them are grounded.

1stAmender replied that logic and reason are human-made tools for understanding society and making predictions, not things that exist in the universe.

Dyer said the debate should be about which moral system yields better outcomes, and that 1stAmender's appeal to logic is a transcendental argument that requires God.

1stAmender replied that one need not establish God, since universal principles can be established without an anthropomorphic maker.

An audience member asked how 1stAmender came to hold secular humanism as true rather than as opinion, and how it works in practice. 1stAmender answered that he reasons from logic and reason and from comparing historical societies, and that the societies with the highest Human Development Index are secular rather than theocratic.

An audience member asked whether a serial killer who lives as they see fit would count as causing necessary suffering under 1stAmender's two criteria. 1stAmender answered that the harm done to each victim is unnecessary suffering, so such a person would have to be restrained.

1stAmender said a secular humanist society lets people live as they see fit, whether Christian, Muslim or non-religious, and that this makes it better for society.

1stAmender argued that a Christian theocracy would raise the question of which version of Christianity governs, and that this could lead to conflict.

Dyer said 1stAmender's technocrat example shows his system cannot justify preferring individual autonomy over eliminating suffering, and that his position gives no account of the good.