Last night I read an article in which it was argued that Freemasons should continue their practice of unjustly refusing to admit atheists into their fraternity. In 'For No Atheist May Be Made a Freemason', by Bro. Joshua L. Rubin, the case is made for maintaining the ban. The author tries to update the case to give a more reasonable basis than is more often put forward.
You can read his argument here: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/atheism-freemasonry.html
And here is why he's wrong:
I think this paper certainly had some positive points and
the intention of updating the position is to be commended. The recognition of
the flaws in the main arguments against atheism in Freemasonry was a positive
step forward for example. However, the author ultimately failed to make a good
case for his final position. His argument was circular. I suggest that there is
still no clear argument that stands up to scrutiny for maintaining the
discrimination against atheists who would otherwise give every bit as much of
themselves for the Freemasonry.
Briefly adding to his critique of the standard
discriminatory and prejudicial arguments put forward in the Masons regarding
atheism, I feel that it should also be pointed out that not only are those who
apply reason capable of high morals, it has very frequently been the case that
those with faith, motivated by faith, or acting in the name of faith, have
shown themselves to behave appallingly towards their fellow man. Let us not
sweep under the rug the violence and oppression perpetrated by religious groups
of all sizes throughout history. Faith in a supreme being of any kind does not
make you more likely to be more moral. The argument fails logically and
empirically and should be dismissed by all. The argument gets worse when you
consider the nature of a divine moral code. Whose code? Where does it come
from? If it comes from scripture, which parts do you use? If it comes from past
Masons, how did they derive it? No matter which way you slice it, you are left
with the reality that morals are cherry picked. If that is the case, and it is
by necessity, then there must be an independent source of morality external of
that code in order to achieve said code. That means all theists have done is
add a middleman, which is perfectly fine, but it doesn't improve their moral
status.
It should also be noted that the question of moral soundness
opens up Freemasonry to a charge of hypocrisy. If someone is motivated by the
prospect of reward or punishment in the afterlife, they are not acting from a
particularly virtuous position when they help their fellow man. By contrast,
someone who does the same action but motivated by the conviction that it is
right or just, without the coercion inherent in a belief a Deity, can
reasonably be seen as more moral. Masonry, which is supposed to be about the
relationship of man to man, and is supposed to promote brotherhood, instead
casts out the man who is naturally good or has reasoned to virtue, in favour of
the man who acts because he believes he has been told to or through divine
fear. These virtuous men if given the chance could prove themselves to be every
bit the Brother a theist might be. Why so cruelly abandon potential Brethren?
It seems the policy in these terms is to the detriment of those good men and to
Freemasonry.
I suspect part of the problem is the precarious nature of
faith in the supernatural in the face of reason. Not one known human has to
this date managed to present a sound argument for the existence of God, and
there is no evidence that has ever been presented to support the hypothesis.
These facts cause difficulty to those who decide to make faith the foundation
of their conceived world. It means that when their faith is challenged, their
world is challenged. This is probably why religious people tend to become
violent more readily when their views are questioned. Someone who bases his
views in science will not face those problems because it is a self-correcting
mechanism. The base can be replaced without a house of cards collapsing. This
typically means that theists will go to great lengths to minimise their contact
with anything they may perceive as a threat. Hence the tendency to claim to be
offended and shut down debate as soon as someone says something difficult. I
fear that the Masons have done just this. To be clear, I am not suggesting that
Freemasonry is inherently irrational, but because only theists are permitted,
there is unlikely to be a body of thought within the fraternity that favours
reason over belief. In other words, members, with their theist hats on, are
engaging in self-preservation as theists, not preservation of the Craft as
Masons. This is clearly a betrayal of their moral cause.
So far this has nothing at all to do with the interests of
Freemasonry. What it boils down to is that theists don’t want atheists
threatening their sense of certainty and so atheists are excluded because
currently only theists have a say in the matter. Perhaps theists believe that
if atheists engage in the same rituals it will undermine what they have come to
believe is uniquely for them. This brings us to the history and ceremony side of
the argument. In my Great Grandfather’s Masonic Bible – printed in 1947 - there
is a section before the Old Testament which explains the history of the Masons
and explains how it relates to religion and the Holy Bible. In that section it
emphasises that freemasonry is not a religious practice. It says that theology
is not to be included. It says that Masonic ideology was based on a collection
of ideas in many different forms. Some of these were poems, some were parts of
the Bible, some were other religious texts, and there were still further
sources. The inclusion of Biblical materials was not to base Freemasonry in
religion, but to use it as data as part of an argument that shows freemasonry
as having a tradition that stretches back through Biblical times. Maintaining
the use of religious forms is symbolic but latching on to them for their
theological value is missing the point. From a historical perspective, the
inclusion of religious elements in ritual is neither here nor there in terms of
what freemasonry claims to be about. It is ritual, and ritual binds people together
whether they take the symbols literally or symbolically. Also from a historical
perspective, an increasing use of religious rhetoric and language could very
easily be a product of the times. There was no choice but to be religious. If
freemasonry wanted to exist in an environment that was essentially a theocracy
then it would have to present itself as not being in competition with that norm.
The author of the paper to which I am responding points out that the argument
from history points to a fallacy of relevance, because it is clear that the
world in the 21st century is very different than it was in the 18th
century. What was appropriate and perhaps necessary then, is not appropriate
and necessary now. In terms of history, there is no case for excluding atheists
now that there is sufficient doubt over the relevance of past norms, especially
when you add to that the destruction of the arguments about morality.
It looks far more likely than not, that religion, both in
the context of protecting moral codes and in historical perspective, was
secondary to the main purpose of freemasonry. The religious elements served to
protect freemasonry in a time when the arguments presented were useful.
However, it is fair to acknowledge that for much of its history those
conditions did exist and have thus gone some way to influencing the nature of
the language used in the Craft, not least in ritual. The author was fair to
point that out and it is worth looking at. Unfortunately, here he seems to
really fall down however. Several times he says that because of the nature of
the ceremonies, atheists would probably feel uncomfortable taking part (why
atheists shouldn’t be capable of deciding that for themselves I cannot tell),
and that the language is not geared towards atheist thinking. The argument
becomes Freemasonry shouldn’t admit atheists because freemasonry doesn’t admit
atheists. That’s not a very strong argument. The justification would be broken
simply by changing the norm. It’s circular. He does make a fair point when he
essentially asks, “These are our rituals, why should we change them?” I agree
that the rituals should be left largely as they are. Only minor changes would
be needed, to the extent the prohibition on atheism is removed. Atheists could
easily engage in the same rituals and use the same language. Even those who
believe in some creator have no idea what it is. It could be anything. It thus
might as well be nature. Perhaps the higher power is entropy. Since the
religious elements are symbolic, it really doesn’t matter. The theists can
import their theological ideas into it to suit their sensibilities, and the atheists
can take it as allegorical or simply poetic. The meaning behind the lines is
the important thing, and that is about the Brotherhood, not theology. The
language is not prohibitive to atheists. The only thing in the way is the
theist desire to maintain a theist monopoly.
A far better way would be to accept atheists and realise
that they are not a threat to Freemasonry. One’s own personal relationship with
their God or their lack of one should be kept out of meetings, just like
politics should. Theists can borrow the ceremonial language to give extra
meaning to their own theological ideas if they wish, but the meaning behind in
terms of Freemasonry is applicable to all men. There is absolutely no need to
exclude atheists in the 21st century. Within the Craft, theists and
atheists can all muck in together. Furthermore, as humans gain more knowledge,
the space left for the supernatural decreases substantially. If freemasonry hopes
to continue with its primary mission, while the numbers of self-identifying
atheists, secularists and humanists increase, and not just be an organisation
representing a minority in the future, then it will have to change. It might as
well get a head start. I move that the United Grand Lodge of England re-examine
this outdated philosophical mode, and put Freemasonry ahead of theism.
For the sake of openness, I should declare (if you hadn’t
guessed) that I am not a Mason. My great grandfather was W.Bro. Chas Dobson, a
Worshipful Master of the Coronation Lodge No. 2922. He was also a Knight
Templar. I also know several other accomplished Masons. If the rules were
changed to permit those like me, I would probably like to contribute to Masonry
as I believe it is fundamentally a force for good in the world.
