Libertarian Scholar: Religion Is 'Indispensable to a Moral Civilization'

"Secular humanism rests on sand," Charles Murray says.

Many years ago I was tasked with picking Charles Murray up from the airport to deliver a talk later in the evening.

I readily accepted. I was a fan of several of Murray’s books, including Coming Apart (though I would have picked a different title for the book). I knew him to be a highly educated man—he received a B.A. from Harvard University and PhD from MIT—and one of the most distinguished scholars in America today. (Sadly, the controversy over The Bell Curve (1994) looms over his entire body of work and remains a lightning rod today.)

When I picked Murray up from the airport that day, he seemed a bit older than I had expected. He looked tired, even a little frail. (The clips of him on television I had watched had been from years earlier.) Yet he was polite, gentlemanly and, at times, even talkative.

I only remember a few of the things we talked about.

1. James Comey was testifying before Congress, and he was eager to learn if I had any news of the event.

2. Murray was adamant that most of the critics of The Bell Curve had never actually read the book.

3. Religion

I don’t really recall how religion came up in our conversation or what was said, but I remember thinking that Murray—who I had believed to be an agnostic—was perhaps a budding believer, perhaps even a Christian (as I am).

Later that night, Murray delivered a fine speech to packed crowd in Minneapolis. Near the end of his speech, he confirmed that he was, if not quite a believer, on the path to becoming one. (This is not something I’m inferring; Murray made this point explicitly.)

I bring up this story because Murray—a prominent figure in libertarian and classical liberal circles—recently responded to a questioner on Twitter who asked if humans can achieve a moral and functioning society without religion.

His response, shared below, is worth considering.

“I've come to think over the last 20 years that secular humanism has no moral bottom. Absent a core of absolutes of right and wrong, anything can be rationalized. Absent some divine origin for those absolutes, they cannot be absolutes.

Twenty years ago, I saw the potential for such rationalizations. Since then, I have watched the most secular elements of societies in the West rationalize ever-widening departures from what used to [be] moral principles that secular humanism claimed it could sustain.

I admire many secular humanist thinkers. But consider how few Steven Pinkers remain and how many who are now advocating forms of totalitarianism. Secular humanism rests on sand.

As for the falsehoods of religion, I've also become convinced over the last 20 years that they are unimportant compared to the core insights shared by the great religious traditions. So [in my opinion] the answer to your question is no. Religion is indispensable to a moral civilization.”

Now, I happen to know many atheists. Many of them I consider friends. Many of them see the world much like I do, and share my basic ethics, morals, and values. I’d trust them with my children (in fact, I’ve done so) or with my life.

Nevertheless, I think Murray is correct.

I know a lot of my libertarian and Randian friends will disagree, of course. And I pray they are right. Because I’ve read enough about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution to know what happens when “thought leaders” become completely detached from religion, virtue, and reason, and become drunk on utopianism, passion, and power. (And, of course, statism.)

That’s a future I never want to experience.