My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why does Freemasonry require a belief in God?

LAMason

Premium Member
More food for thought:

"Through years of simple, profound degrees, we weave the Mystic Tie. We cannot say of what it is composed. We cannot put a name to it. St. Augustine, asked of God, answered, 'I know until you ask me-when you ask me, I do not know.' In your heart you know, and I know, what the Mystic Tie is-what Freemasonry is. But you cannot say it, nor can I. It is too deep for words. It is the reason we use symbols, for words cannot express it.

"Deep in us is something which understands what brains cannot think; something which knows what our minds cannot comprehend. Masonry speaks to that something in its own language. If we must put it into words, God is the only syllable which seems to fit. But when we say God we mean no special deity, but all that is beautiful in life, in friendship, in charity, in brotherhood.

"So, my brother, there is no reason for you to be puzzled; no man can answer your puzzle. Freemasonry is loved by men because it strikes deep into the human heart, and supplies the answer to the question, the food for the hunger, which the tongue cannot express..."

http://www.themasonictrowel.com/masonic_talk/old_tyler_talks/ott_main_toc.htm
 

LAMason

Premium Member
An agnostic acknowledges the fact that he has nothing but faith. That is an important point, and it misunderstood by a great many. Agnosticism is not "doubt". It is, literally, the absence of knowledge. So the answer to the question, "What does an agnostic believe in?" is "Anything he chooses to believe in."

Your definition of an agnostic and faith are very different than mine. My understanding is that an agnostic is a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not and that faith is a strong belief or trust in someone or something, if someone does not have a definite belief in something what do they have faith in?

Regrettably, I do not have a lot of original thoughts, so I like the writings of great Masons and great thinkers like Carl Claudy:

"That is different!" smiled the Old Tiler. "The agnostic is a mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity. The agnostic isn't satisfied with the God of Moses, or the God of Calvin, or the God of Luther, or the God of the Jews, or the God of Jesus Christ. He wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego. But when he tries to make such a god he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up and solves the problem by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!' Because he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation; he is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.' But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
"That is different!" smiled the Old Tiler. "The agnostic is a mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity. The agnostic isn't satisfied with the God of Moses, or the God of Calvin, or the God of Luther, or the God of the Jews, or the God of Jesus Christ. He wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego. But when he tries to make such a god he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up and solves the problem by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!' Because he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation; he is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.' But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html
Interesting...

As I understand Agnosticism, it is merely an outward and honest acknowledgement of an inward not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known. All that is underlined above is the ranting of someone who not only believes differently, but cannot accept that agnostic can come to an agnostic view without somehow being less for it. Bro. Carl sure did have a lot of his personal biases, preconceived notions, assumptions and prejudices revealed in this. The sad aspect of all this is that his "baggage" is being used to instruct on generation after another as if it is right rather than an example of how such baggage clouds a man's view of others who believe and think differently.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
it is merely an outward and honest acknowledgement of an inward not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known.

To me there is a difference in saying I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is and do not believe I am capable of understanding it and someone saying I do not know if there is anything. Again based on my definition the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable. The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything.

We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is. I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.
 

NY.Light.II

Registered User
To me there is a difference in saying I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is and do not believe I am capable of understanding it and someone saying I do not know if there is anything. Again based on my definition the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable. The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything.

We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is. I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.

First, there is no "my definition of agnostic" and "your definition of agnostic". Things are what they are. Your interpretation may differ, but truth is the same universally (I.e. One thing cannot be true for someone and not for someone else). Not to get too into the definitions of what constitutes being and existence, the whole discussion of "my definition" vs. "your definition" bothered me.

Second, if you have faith, it is inherent in the definition that you don't *know* it. By definition, faith is belief or confidence in something in the absence of proof. If there was proof for something, we would *know*; believers have no objective proof of the divine, yet they have faith in its existence. Knowing something is abjectly different than having faith in something.

I felt it necessary to define these so as to keep clarity in this discussion. As you were.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
To me there is a difference in saying I know there is something greater than I am, I just don't know what it is and do not believe I am capable of understanding it and someone saying I do not know if there is anything. Again based on my definition the first would not be an agnostic and does believe in and have faith in something even though they believe it is unknowable. The second would be an agnostic and would not have belief or faith in anything.

We apparently have very different understandings of what an agnostic is. I also happen to share Bro. Claudy's opinion.
Yes, we do have very different understandings and hence our differing comments and why I don't share Bro. Claudy's conclusions.

You have taken the division much further than I have. Merely not knowing AND believing too that such things cannot be known doesn't appear to apply to what you understand of agnosticism. You have taken it and added more to it than what I have. Additionally, I cannot assume that an agnostic would not believe in anything or would not have faith of any kind (as in, seeing and believing in a possibility as opposed to having a religion of sorts). I've known agnostics who do have beliefs and do exhibit faith, but just not along the lines of those who believe in God or practice religion.

But let me take a good look at what Bro. Claudy is preaching and respond in kind.

I do not believe that an agnostic is a mentally lazy person without enough energy to formulate a conception of Deity. Perhaps he has mentally exhausted himself trying to make sense of the whole in a rational way and has merely concluded that it cannot be rationally addressed and to do so would be futile.

I cannot assume that the agnostic isn't satisfied with any religious view that has been offered by others. Perhaps there is no drive to satisfy these desires as it exists in others.

I cannot assume that he wants his own little God, made according to a formula which suits his kind of ego. This assumes that he wants his own little God. Perhaps this is merely the imaginings of someone who has his own little God and wants others to share in this with him.

I cannot assume that he tries to make such a God OR that he runs into so many contradiction that he gives it up and solves the problem by saying, 'I don't know what I believe!' Perhaps this is merely a wishful projection on the part of a believer upon someone who can't and won't be bullied into believing similarly and for all the right reasons. Perhaps it is not a problem to solve for the agnostic BUT it is s problem for the believer who wishes to belittle the agnostic for knowing his own mind and heart.

I cannot assume that because he is then in a class by himself he gradually evolves a queer sort of pride in the negation; he is 'different' from his fellows, and therefore, 'superior.' Perhaps there is no negation whatsoever and that he hasn't developed any such notions and that he is being put down for merely having a different opinion on such matters.

I cannot assume that it's just a pose. I cannot assume that he shall change his view when he or his loved ones are put in harms way. I cannot assume that such cries mean anything of significance other than an utter expression of hopelessness on the part of the person crying.

I want to believe that an agnostic has used God's given gift to rightfully conclude what is right for him and to do so without me assuming he is wrong for doing so. His beliefs have no impact upon me whatsoever unless I do what Bro. Claudy has done, assume all sorts of things that may have nothing to do with the subject at hand and to teach others to make the same belittling and dismissive assumptions when confronted with someone who believes differently.

I would put his lecture into the category of uncircumscribed passions. I believe he has gone over the line and was driven by his own unsubdued desires.

IMO
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Why do you think Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being?

Because the founders of the GL version of the organization believed it would benefit the organization and its members to have such a rule in place as they made effort to niche market to future members.

Do you stick with the explanation given in the ritual that otherwise no oath would be binding on him?

No. I have yet to see the majority of men change their way as a result of taking such an obligation. If behavior change is any indication of such an explanation, it has failed miserably.

What is it about an atheist or agnostic that makes them unsuitable to be made a Mason?

They become a target and hence a reason for disruption, not because of who they are or what they believe but because of the intolerant behaviors of those who embrace something different.

How is a man that believes in a Supreme Being different from a man who does not?

I don't believe any thinking rational being exists that doesn't believe in a Supreme Being. How that SB belief manifests though is sometimes dramatically different.

Example: one person believes a SB is an exclusive Entity (a Who or What!) and another believes a SB is a manner only (a How!). The difference is worlds apart and so are the attitudes such men portray, especially toward one another.

Why is that difference important to Masonry?

As long as the majority uses and treats the issue negatively, it shall always be important to the Freemasonic order.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
It is not my intention to say that my interpretation of agnosticism is correct. My purpose was to provide a stipulative definition for the purpose of discussion relative to the requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being, in doing so I used the following definition for agnostic:

“ a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Again, I am approaching this discussion with my personal point of reference being the requirement of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana:

“The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”

http://www.la-mason.com/wp-content/themes/mason/documents/HOML-2013.pdf

My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.

To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one. If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.

I have stated previously that for the most part I take things literally, so it is not unusual for me to have an opinion that is different from someone who doesn’t.
 
Last edited:

LAMason

Premium Member
I don't believe any thinking rational being exists that doesn't believe in a Supreme Being.

That is the meaning I took from Bro. Claudy saying "But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
It is not my intention to say that my interpretation of agnosticism is correct. My purpose was to provide a stipulative definition for the purpose of discussion relative to the requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being, in doing so I used the following definition for agnostic:

“ a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Again, I am approaching this discussion with my personal point of reference being the requirement of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana:

“The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”

http://www.la-mason.com/wp-content/themes/mason/documents/HOML-2013.pdf

My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.

To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one. If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.

I have stated previously that for the most part I take things literally, so it is not unusual for me to have an opinion that is different from someone who doesn’t.
Yup. The discourse is for discourse sake. Steel sharpening steel. I hope that you are enjoying the ride as much as I am.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
That is the meaning I took from Bro. Claudy saying "But it's just a pose; let his child be desperately ill or he be in danger of drowning, and you'll hear him... yes, and the 'atheist,' too... cry to God for help."
He may very well have had that intention my Brother, but (I felt that ) he truly didn't have to precursor this statement with all those other assumptions. It presents a bad example of the Craft and to the Craft
 

LAMason

Premium Member
@ coachn

I don't think that Bro. Claudy was intolerant. Although, I included the link to the "Old Tiler Talk" I quoted, I did not quote it in its entirety. Here is how he concluded:

"Luckily for poor impotent humanity the Supreme Architect is a merciful God who hears the cries of His children in distress whether they are simple men you know and like, or strange-minded men like Smithkins, who distress us with their lack of understanding."

"Then you do not think Smithkins is a menace to the lodge because he is an... because he believes... differently from you and me?"

"I do not!" smiled the Old Tiler. "I know Smithkins pretty well. He doesn't lie so he must have some belief, or he wouldn't be a Mason. It doesn't concern us, or the lodge, or Masonry, what his belief is, so it is sincere. It takes all sorts of people to make a world, and if we all thought alike..."

"Why, then," interrupted the New Brother, "there would be no use for Old Tilers and their talks to the ignorant!"

"That would be terrible, wouldn't it?" agreed the Old Tiler, as he rose to answer knocks from within."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
@ coachn

I don't think that Bro. Claudy was intolerant. Although, I included the link to the "Old Tiler Talk" I quoted, I did not quote it in its entirety. Here is how he concluded:

"Luckily for poor impotent humanity the Supreme Architect is a merciful God who hears the cries of His children in distress whether they are simple men you know and like, or strange-minded men like Smithkins, who distress us with their lack of understanding."

"Then you do not think Smithkins is a menace to the lodge because he is an... because he believes... differently from you and me?"

"I do not!" smiled the Old Tiler. "I know Smithkins pretty well. He doesn't lie so he must have some belief, or he wouldn't be a Mason. It doesn't concern us, or the lodge, or Masonry, what his belief is, so it is sincere. It takes all sorts of people to make a world, and if we all thought alike..."

"Why, then," interrupted the New Brother, "there would be no use for Old Tilers and their talks to the ignorant!"

"That would be terrible, wouldn't it?" agreed the Old Tiler, as he rose to answer knocks from within."

http://the-lectern.blogspot.com/2008/10/old-tiler-talks-atheist-and-agnostic.html
I had read this tiler talk many years ago and have reread it many times since, including when you posted it. I have the same feeling and thoughts now about it as I did originally. He's not intolerant in this talk; he's biased, opinionated, prejudiced and assuming. He applies these personal traits of his view toward atheists and agnostics without reservation, and possibly unknowingly too. His logically arguments are based on flawed premises. As much as the talk is written to produce a feel good response toward those members who think and believe differently, it is still a poor example for the Craft, IMO, and far from neutral in its presentation.

Unfortunately, it perfectly reflects the attitudes, assumptions, biases, preconceived notions and judgments of quite a few members within the Craft, so I suspect he was writing for a specific target audience and successfully so.

BTW - I have met quite a few people who have very strong beliefs and still lie like there is no tomorrow when they believe the opportunity demands it... some without even knowing that they are!
 
Last edited:

pointwithinacircle2

Rapscallion
Premium Member
It might also be wise to remember that Carl Claudy was born in 1879, and died in 1957, he became a Mason in 1908. I am sure that his writings were influenced by the times in which he wrote.
 

Roy_

Registered User
LAMason said:
“The only requirement in regard to religious belief connected with a petitioner is that he profess his belief in a Supreme Being. No question of religious denomination shall be asked.”

My interpretation of this requirement is that a petitioner must answer the first question on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana “Petition for the Degrees in Masonry” “Do you believe in God?” with an unequivocal affirmative response to meet the requirement.

To me that does not mean he has to believe in any particular interpretation of what God is, just that he believe that there is one. If someone can answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative response, even if he considers himself to be an agnostic, then he meets the stated requirement.

That sounds quite a bit like the quote from the Belgian "adogmatic" FM that I gave earlier:
The workplaces of the GLB labor in favour of the Grand Architect of the Universe and in the presence of the Book of Moral Law opened under Compass and Square, although the constitution of the GLB stipulates very explicitly that the interpretation of all symbols and the Grand Architect of the Universe and the Three Great Lights in particular, is completely free.

Yet the GLB is irregular.
I have tried to find out how that came about. The GLB was founded on 4/12/59. They have been recognised by UGLE for a few years after 1965. I think the reason they are no longer is that the GLB uses the GAOTU and Bible on paper, but not 'in the hearts of the members' (I have found no reference that politics in the lodge caused the GLB to split off from the Grand Orient of Belgium).

In any case,
Point In A Circle said:
How is a man that believes in a Supreme Being different from a man who does not? Why is that difference important to Masonry?
When in the lodge (or at the table), it does not really make much difference to me what kind of interpretation the other member has of the GAOTU or the Rite as long as his presence does not interfere with the experience of other people present. When I look at the regular Grand Orient of the Netherlands, almost every single FM I met, tells me he does not believe in anything, yet all strive to be better men and everyone 'collects his wages' from the Rite. However I find all this a(nti)religious talking strange, it does not really hinder me personally.

(Little offtopic sidenote, there are Belgian Grand Lodges and Orients that you can not join when you are member of a church. Quite different from the USA, right? That would certainly not be my kind of lodge.)
 

NY.Light.II

Registered User
That sounds quite a bit like the quote from the Belgian "adogmatic" FM that I gave earlier:


Yet the GLB is irregular.
I have tried to find out how that came about. The GLB was founded on 4/12/59. They have been recognised by UGLE for a few years after 1965. I think the reason they are no longer is that the GLB uses the GAOTU and Bible on paper, but not 'in the hearts of the members' (I have found no reference that politics in the lodge caused the GLB to split off from the Grand Orient of Belgium).

In any case,

When in the lodge (or at the table), it does not really make much difference to me what kind of interpretation the other member has of the GAOTU or the Rite as long as his presence does not interfere with the experience of other people present. When I look at the regular Grand Orient of the Netherlands, almost every single FM I met, tells me he does not believe in anything, yet all strive to be better men and everyone 'collects his wages' from the Rite. However I find all this a(nti)religious talking strange, it does not really hinder me personally.

(Little offtopic sidenote, there are Belgian Grand Lodges and Orients that you can not join when you are member of a church. Quite different from the USA, right? That would certainly not be my kind of lodge.)

First, the Grand Lodge of Belgium, in 1989, signed an agreement of mutual recognition with the Women's Grand Lodge of Belgium and the Belgian Federation of Le Droit Humain. Recognition from UGLE was withdrawn in 1979. This agreement would probably preclude any talk of reinstating regular amity with other GLs, especially since a regular Grand Lodge is in existence in Belgium, the Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium. (️ info extracted from Wikipedia).

Second, areligious an anti-religious are not synonymous.

Third, I favor the position you describe in regards to religious non interference among brothers. It could be carried forward that an agnostic or atheistic position could perhaps be tolerated if it did not obstruct the personal convictions of another brother.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I was informed that the reason was that in order to be properly obligated you had to have a belief in a Supreme Being so that you could place your hand on the VSL of your particular belief to swear to uphold the obligations.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I was informed that the reason was that in order to be properly obligated you had to have a belief in a Supreme Being so that you could place your hand on the VSL of your particular belief to swear to uphold the obligations.
I was told the same, and, much like the rest of Freemasonry, the literal answer sorta answered the question, but not really. At least not to me.

That particular justification, that without a Supreme Being to swear to, that we couldn't take a man's word, in my mind falls apart when we compare other examples, such as swearing any kind of oath in the secular world. Giving testimony, enlisting in the armed services, upholding one's duties to an elected office, all of these are things where a person is required to swear an oath, but we don't bar anyone from enlisting because they're an atheist. Granted, in the secular world, one might cry discrimination and get things changed, but ultimately, I feel that the argument that one can't be trust without an oath sworn to a deity they believe in is the same (in my opinion flawed) argument that an atheist cannot be a good person without the fear of divine retribution.

After much searching, I have found that deep down, Freemasonry is about our relationship with the Supreme Being. Taking a journey whose destination holds no value to you is pointless. Not only would it waste the time of the person on the journey, it threatens to cheapen it for those who are truly interested.
 

NY.Light.II

Registered User
I was told the same, and, much like the rest of Freemasonry, the literal answer sorta answered the question, but not really. At least not to me.

That particular justification, that without a Supreme Being to swear to, that we couldn't take a man's word, in my mind falls apart when we compare other examples, such as swearing any kind of oath in the secular world. Giving testimony, enlisting in the armed services, upholding one's duties to an elected office, all of these are things where a person is required to swear an oath, but we don't bar anyone from enlisting because they're an atheist. Granted, in the secular world, one might cry discrimination and get things changed, but ultimately, I feel that the argument that one can't be trust without an oath sworn to a deity they believe in is the same (in my opinion flawed) argument that an atheist cannot be a good person without the fear of divine retribution.

After much searching, I have found that deep down, Freemasonry is about our relationship with the Supreme Being. Taking a journey whose destination holds no value to you is pointless. Not only would it waste the time of the person on the journey, it threatens to cheapen it for those who are truly interested.

Full disclosure, I am not yet a Freemason. So yes, there's that.

From this limited perspective, I always assumed Freemasonry was more geared towards understanding the self and the self in relation to others. It could be argued that that would include your description of "our relationship with the Supreme Being", yet that seems to narrow.
 
Top