Freemasonry and agnosticisim

[ess1113]

Thanks for all the great conversation and thoughts.
I do like the question: In whom do you place your trust?
"In God (with caveats?)"
"In God, (who may not exist)"
"In some deity that I sincerely doubt the existence of"

The answer that the candidate gives should be the honest answer from the mans heart.
I do not believe that he can answer "In God" and not mean it and then call himself a Mason. The apparent contradition in the answer would render his obligation void as the member above alluded to. No god (read deity), then no tie to the fraternity. No tie to the fraternity then not a Mason.


To bring the conversation full circle: I believe that every Mason can and should define God in any manner that they see fit, but I fully agree also that the absence of belief then the obligation was flawed. I also believe that the obligation taken with our hands or hand on the VSL is what makes us Masons. I am not defining or causing the GATOU to be defined by anyone. I am firm in my belief in the wording that I must firmly believe in the existence of a God and the immortality of the soul. I am opposed to anything strictly black and white on moral grounds but the question
" Do you seriously declare upon your honor that you believe in the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and in the Divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures"
That question only has TWO possible answers: YES or NO.
I feel strongly that the members of the great fraternity did not predict the answer MAYBE to that question.
In many ways this discussion is similar to interpreting the constitution. We look at what our forefathers wrote and then interpret then in modern terms. The members of this fraternity all answered YES to that question in the same manner that we ALL answered "In God" when asked whom do we place our trust. Althought I agree that there are many names for deity, nobody ever answered "I place my trust in something that I dont believe in and really cant define". That candidate would have been led from the lodge.

Thank you all for the great conversation and the inspirational thoughts.

 

[jwhoff]

"Can one state belief in a Deity and at the same time state it is impossible to KNOW there is a Deity? I think yes."

I think you are right brother. And, I think it requires some serious thought to get there. Serious thought and not, blind faith, is what one should strive for. In the long run, it makes for stronger belief.

 

[dstrickland]

Agnosticism comes from the Greek word 'gnosis' which means 'knowledge.' Its purpose is to convey skepticism about humankind's knowledge of diety, not a denial of the existence of diety (which is atheism, as stated above). This is an important distinction. One may believe that religion itself is little more than superstition and mythos -- culturally-dependent attempts to ontologically and metaphysically explain deity -- yet at the same time be firm in their belief that deity exists. In other words, agnosticism questions our knowledge about a thing, not the existence of the thing itself. So an agnostic may say, "I firmly believe and acknowledge that, since something (and not nothing) exists exist, there is a creative force that brought things into being, and I would call this creative force 'deity.' I do not, however, believe I can understand its nature, that I can tell you what kind of being it has, or pretent I could understand the 'mind' of such, shoudl it have one." This is not to suggest that agnosticism is correct. Rather, it is to suggest that one may hold agnostic opinions while having a firm convicion in deity. This person would be in compliance with Masonic practice.

 

[ess1113]

Very good points.
I still contend that by common definition:
Agnostic:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I hate arguing semantics but I do not feel that you can hold a "firm belief" while admitting that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. I think thats why so many Christians are considered "believers" and not just people that hold a strong suspicion on the existence of God.
I admit that there is no way I can understand the true nature of God or even understand the events that shape our lives but I do believe, and I do not think that an agnostic can answer the questions required of Masonry honestly and still be admitted.

 

[MacFie]

Yeah I hold no lack of credibility in someone who doesn't know who/what deity is, but still believes it's there...from the previous-post, an Agnostic Theist.

But, someone vowing upon a god they are not really sure is there, which is the textbook of agnostic(gnostic might mean knowledge, but lets not forget, "a" means without, so therein, agnostic is one who will not stand to either side), I don't feel could make a vow on such a thing.

Like, I swear upon the grave of my dead mother!!(who may or may not be dead)...heh

 

[Frater Cliff Porter]

A purely agnostic man might be a "good" man, but not all good men can be Masons.

We overly think stuff and try to rationalize to the detrimental point of relativism.

No, an agnostic man can't be a Mason. If he is misinformed about terminologies and in conversation with him you learn he is a traditional Deist, in other words believes in an uncaring and uninvolved force/God, but not in some anthropomorphic version of God...fine, he can start the journey.

But look, we can get all college creative, but we all know that Agnostics shouldn't be Mason.

It must have been a very wise man that said, "I knows' it when I seez' it."

P.S.

Masons...there is no shame in guarding your Craft, honoring your obligations, or in using discresion when it comes to who becomes a Mason. Is it hard, you bet, is it fun, not all the time....BUT that's why Master Masons do the voting. Your intrusted with a ballot, not so that we can have an open door and backslap eachother for how tolerant we all are. We have a ballot because we are Masters in the quarry and for whom is dedicated the work of casting aside the stone that will crack and splinter for their own good as well as the good of Masonry.

 

[MacFie]

but not in some anthropomorphic version of God

What does that mean exactly? If it's literal, that might cut out everything but Judaism and Islam!!

 

[Frater Cliff Porter]

Most traditions have an anthropomorphous description of Deity or give him human traits. I am providing that God as a cosmic consciousness, the uninvolved creative force of Deism and the like would qualify a man for Masonry, but Agnosticism, would not.

 

[MacFie]

Ok misread what was being said I think!! Gotta love the forums!

 

[Benton]

A purely agnostic man might be a "good" man, but not all good men can be Masons.

We overly think stuff and try to rationalize to the detrimental point of relativism.

No, an agnostic man can't be a Mason. If he is misinformed about terminologies and in conversation with him you learn he is a traditional Deist, in other words believes in an uncaring and uninvolved force/God, but not in some anthropomorphic version of God...fine, he can start the journey.

But look, we can get all college creative, but we all know that Agnostics shouldn't be Mason.

It must have been a very wise man that said, "I knows' it when I seez' it."

P.S.

Masons...there is no shame in guarding your Craft, honoring your obligations, or in using discresion when it comes to who becomes a Mason. Is it hard, you bet, is it fun, not all the time....BUT that's why Master Masons do the voting. Your intrusted with a ballot, not so that we can have an open door and backslap eachother for how tolerant we all are. We have a ballot because we are Masters in the quarry and for whom is dedicated the work of casting aside the stone that will crack and splinter for their own good as well as the good of Masonry.

Excellent post. Much thanks for it!

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Very good points.
I still contend that by common definition:
Agnostic:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I hate arguing semantics but I do not feel that you can hold a "firm belief" while admitting that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Brother, I respectfully disagree.
First of all, let us examine the two different, but not mutually exclusive definitions you've offered. Definition "a", (that which Huxley used for term he created, BTW) certainly does not preclude a fervent belief, the likes of which we demand of those petitioning for membership. "Faith" is, by any definition, the willingness to accept something without incontrovertible proof. For my part, I have a much higher regard for an earnest profession of faith from a man who freely admits that none of his beliefs can be proven. Such conviction speaks to me of an earnest and deep examination.

Not everyone, of course, is willing or even able to undertake such an examination. Definition "b", while not incompatible with "a", would certainly not pass as a "belief" as we require it. There is a world of difference between "I can't know so I don't really believe..." and "I can't know but I believe nonetheless..."

So, as is so often the case, labels fail when used as the means by which we judge people.

At the risk of driving the discussion into the weeds a bit, I'm much more intrigued by the wording of the question, "Do you seriously declare upon your honor that you believe in the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and in the Divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures", as it applies to a candidates "belief".
You assert that,

That question only has TWO possible answers: YES or NO.

I say, "Perhaps, but not until we better define the term 'Holy Scriptures'". I am not at all familiar with the laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas, but I'd hazard the guess that there is no "approved list". Is it not a candidate's willingness to bind himself to the Fraternity, by taking his obligation on that which defines his relationship to his Deity, that is of critical importance rather than the form of that definition? Are those laws specifically intended to exclude those candidates whose religion does not have a "holy scripture" in the literal sense? Is, for example, a Native American, whose religious tradition is handed down orally, somehow unworthy of membership, no matter how deep and sincere his belief?

 

[MacFie]

Are those laws specifically intended to exclude those candidates whose religion does not have a "holy scripture" in the literal sense?

Thanks for making that point.

 

[ess1113]

Flotsam,
Thank you for the great rationale in the first part and I will respectfully disagree, deferring to my previous points.

The second part is simply a matter of applying the questions asked of every candidate.
"Do you seriously declare upon your honor that you believe in the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and in the Divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures", as it applies to a candidates "belief".

I feel strongly, almost absolute in fact, that when that question is asked of each and every candidate for the degrees of Freemasonry in this state, there are again, only two possible answers. I admit that Holy Scriptures may entail many, many versions of Holy Scriptures but the candidate is only asked to subscribe to his volume of sacred law. Note that Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Torah, or anything else is not specified.
I will conclude that based upon the literal and fundamental reading of that question, an answer of YES will get you admitted, and an answer of NO, or MAYBE, will exclude you from receiving the degrees.
Without a specific VSL, then what would that candidate take his obligation upon? A blank book? A book that doesnt apply to him?
None of this is taken in an adversarial manner. I just disagree that a candidate without any VSL will have nothing for the square and compass to rest upon, and the parts of the degree alluding to the candidates VSL will have to be excluded in its entiretly. That is a theoretical issue that could conceivably be addressed by the Committee on Work.

Without a VSL is the candidate obligated?
Without a valid obligation, is the candidate a Mason?

I contend that the answers are NO and NO.
Although I am firm in that belief, I also concede your points as valid.

 

[peace out]

My take on the questions asked before initiation is to ask (in a specific way) "do you believe in something?" And maybe more pointedly "do you believe in something bigger than yourself?" Isn't that what masonry is needing and requires? ...A set of men guided by principles bigger than themselves, for the good of all mankind? As is common in mankind's history, those moral precepts handed to us are attributed to deity. Then religion grabs it and defines the deity to meet the cultures needs.

How can one agree to the obligation in the presence of deity if one does not believe in deity? But again, the description of deity is specifically left off in masonry. I don't pretend to know deity, other than to know the tenants obviously handed down to us in the form of morals and teachings for the betterment of ourselves and ultimately all mankind. And given that masonry does not require a specific deity, and that there are several forms in which morals are handed down to different cultures, it becomes obvious that masonry accepts all forms of deity in the context of what masonry teaches and promotes.

Sure, lots of religions specifically describe their God, but masonry doesn't say which one is right or wrong. Only the morals should be universal.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Flotsam,
Thank you for the great rationale in the first part and I will respectfully disagree, deferring to my previous points.

So you would call the man who admits that such things are unknowable, and who still professes a faith without doubt, a liar? Again, we should be very, very cautious about judging a man based on labels like "agnostic", for they often mean different things to different people. The question reads, "Do you believe...", and not "Do you claim to know..."

Without a specific VSL, then what would that candidate take his obligation upon? A blank book? A book that doesnt apply to him?

Again, why must it be a printed and bound collection of holy writ? Are we to discount every man, no matter how qualified and well recommended, if he does not follow a religion that features such a tome?

A Brother, whom I have tremendous respect for (despite his being a lawyer :laugh, points out that there is absolutely no magic in a holy book. People place their hand upon it and tell the most abominable lies on a daily basis in almost every courtroom in the country. So the expectation that only such a book would properly bind a man to his obligation is patently silly. I submit that it is a candidate's willingness, nay, his desire to take his obligation on that which is most sacred to him as the "rule and guide" of his faith, that holds the magic. What does it say about us when we fail to provide that?

The Brother who conferred the Entered Apprentice Degree on me was a Native American. In their wisdom, the brethren of our Lodge allowed him to take his obligations on an eagle feather, an artifact that, for him, held exactly the sacred status that is commonly attributed to the Holy Bible (which, BTW, remained in place on the altar because of GL laws requiring it) for candidates who walk more "conventional" spiritual paths. A finer Mason I have never known, despite the fact that no "book" ever compelled him to be such. His brothers knew that it was his honor, a central part of his spiritual beliefs and symbolized in the eagle feather, that bound him to keep his obligations. He was, rightfully, as humbled by that trust as he was proud of it.
His ashes are now scattered along the Trail of Tears, but as much as it was such a rare privilege to have had such a fine brother and guide, it is my honor to share his story as an example of how we, as Masons, should regard the spirituality of a candidate or brother, as something that should be important to him no matter what label others give it.