Is a "Global Ethic" Possible Without God?
A former associate of mine made the following public quote that I found interesting enough to want to engage him on the topic. His comments will be indented, and in bold; my responses will be in normal text. Other than a couple of minor spelling corrections, and some formatting, this is exactly how the conversation transpired.
What body of "ethics" are suitable basis for law and standards of ethical behavior in a pluralistic, multicultural society? Fortunately, there is a "Global Ethic", which virtually every religion on the planet has formally endorsed. You may be surprised (and hopefully delighted) as to the specifics. Here is a link for further reading: https://www.global-ethic.org/declaration-toward-a-global-ethic/
I've not read the entire document yet, only the first few pages, but in what I have read so far, the document makes a bunch of moralistic-sounding pronouncements that seem to appeal to some external, objective standard of morality, yet offer no grounding (at least as far as I've read thus far) or canon for determining what is "good" and what is "evil."
It also contains some demonstrable lies, like this gem: "In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: You shall not lie! Or in positive terms: Speak and act truthfully!"
It seems that the authors/signers of this declaration are unfamiliar with the Islamic practice of taqiyya (see video).
At this point, I finished reading the full document, and returned to add more comments…
The document asserts that humans have inherent value, but offers not basis for this value. It points out various sins and evils, but as I noted earlier, it does not offer an objective standard for determining what is "good" and what is "evil," nor does it attempt to define why things are the way they are and why they should be any different. It offers solutions, but gives no justification for those solutions other than "the good of humankind"...again, with no justification. It's a perfect example of man attempting to pick himself up by his own bootstraps and reasoning his way to a self-defined utopia.
The one thing it did get right is on page 1: "We affirm that this truth is already known, but yet to be lived in heart and action." For the problem with mankind is that we are inherently sinful and are spiritually dead. We love our sin and refuse to come into the light for fear that our deeds will be made known; we *all* know in our heart of hearts that there is a sovereign God to whom we will all have to answer, and that He has revealed Himself in nature, via our consciences, through the Bible and ultimately via the person of Jesus Christ who, while we were yet sinners, took our sins upon Himself on the cross, endured God's full wrath on our behalf, was crucified, died, and was buried. Three days later, He rose from the grave, defeating death and offering all who would believe in Him eternal life. He has promised to return, and when He does, there will be judgment for both the living and the dead—only after this will peace be possible on earth.
If Jesus is not the core and basis of your ethic, you're building a house of cards on a foundation of sand.
Well said, and no disagreement. Did you read anything in the Declaration that conflicts with a life of faith, as you described it here? The declaration intentionally circumscribed ethics common to all communities of faith, and does not presume to diminish or elevate any religion or its particular tenets. Nor does it attempt to create a "universal religion", or cast all religions as equally valid. But it identifies a set of ethics common to all, and that is extremely valuable.
Part of what's "good", albeit not all encompassing, is spelled out (e.g. equality of men and women). I will ponder further on your remarks. As to your reference to taqiyya, I am unfamiliar with it and will have to look it up. Meanwhile, let me point out the Declaration was signed by official representatives of multiple Muslim sects.
After you come up to speed on taqiyya, I think you'll find it unsurprising that the document would be signed by Islamists.
Regarding your question of a "life of faith," I suppose that would require some explanation of precisely what you mean by that, but taking it at face value, I find it to be incompatible with a biblical worldview for a number of reasons.
First, it suggests that truth can be discerned through autonomous human reasoning. A careful reading of Genesis 3 will show that Eve made two fatal errors when she was tempted by Satan:
she added to the word of God (v. 3), and
she reasoned autonomously, coming to her own conclusions about the fruit, divorced from the clear command of God (v. 6).
Note that Eve’s infamous failure at autonomous reasoning came while she was still without sin (v. 7). We, however, are much worse off, thanks to having been sinful since conception (Psalm 51:5). The old saying "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it" comes to mind here.
Secondly, all knowledge and wisdom is rooted in God Himself (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3), without Him, it would be impossible to *know* anything (by "know" I mean "justified, true belief"). But the document conspicuously excludes God. Thirdly, our value as humans is presumed in the document but with no basis--it is arbitrarily assumed, so it is irrational. In reality, our value is directly derived from the fact that we are special creations of Almighty God and as such we are his image-bearers. We are so special, in fact, that Man was the first thing that God formed with His own hands (all other creations were the result of divine fiat), the only creation into which he breathed, and the only creature for which He sent His Son to die to atone for their sins so that relationship might be restored.
Fourthly (and I'll stop with this one for now, though I could go on), the document aims at a type of salvation of the human race as the ultimate goal—the establishment of a utopian existence where nobody fights and everyone lives in peace. This directly contradicts Jesus' own words which promise wars and rumors of wars and kingdoms and nations rising up against each other (Matthew 24) until Jesus himself returns. Christ is the prince of peace, yet the authors and signers of this document are on a fools errand to pursue peace absent the only One who can bring that peace about. In a nutshell, the document has a nice, shiny paint job and several coats of clear lacquer, but once you scratch the surface, its irrational and ungodly substrate of Bondo® and rust are manifest. It's nothing less than an attempt to fix the symptoms without regard to the actual problems.
Dan, I admire your scholarship, passion, and dedication to your beliefs. Again, the document, by design, does not purport to define a religion or substitute for religion. It is a consensus among representatives of the various world religions as to what attitudes and behaviors are considered ethical. Let me mention the initial draft of the Declaration was written by Hans Kung, a prominent Christian theologian, whose writings might be described as Christ- centric.
I recognize and understand what you're saying about the intent of the document, but that, I think, is what makes it so dangerous.
Why is it a good idea to remove Christ from the center of morality? Is it so that we can be "friends" with the world? Didn't James warn us about this?
“You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”
Did not Christ also warn us about this?
“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”
Paul also addresses this in Colossians 2:8-10.
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;”
I had never heard of Hans Küng before now, but should it matter who he is? Does the fact that he's a theologian make his pronouncements biblical? Remember...Peter was one of the three closest to Jesus, but Paul still rebuked him to his face when Peter started acting contrary to the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 2:11-21).
I truly do understand the intent of the document, and from a secular point of view I think the goals are noble. But without Christ at the center of it all, it's nothing more than a placebo that will make people feel good as they're on the road to hell. (Mark 8:36)