A Skeptic Freemason - wtf?

[jakesteele]

I am both a skeptic (avid, attend a group etc) and a long time Mason (Past Master). I'll address how I rationalize these two seemingly incongruous affiliations at the end of this post.

One thing I have noticed is that some skeptics downplay the Masonic significance of the back of the US one dollar bill. The all seeing eye thing is a well established masonic symbol. We come across this symbol in various degrees (3rd "blue lodge" degree and here and there in the Scottish Rite degrees). It is referenced many times in Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry as being a principle symbol of the craft - basically symbolizing something called "Divine Omniscience".

Freemasonry has more symbols than a Neil Peart drumkit (yeah, groan). The all- seeing eye is one of perhaps fifty that I can identify at a moment's notice. Many have no doubt been co-opted (or in post-modernist terms: appropriated), throughout time. Given the fact that Masons have a long history of involvement in US politics and government, is it so unbelievable that one can find Masonic symbolism on the back of a slip of paper which bears the likeness of an actual Freemason on the front? I know this organization well and I've met more than a few Masons with enough (perhaps too much) zealous love for the fraternity that given the chance, they'd spray paint a square and compasses on Buckingham Palace, if given the chance. Knowing that, it's not a big deal for me to say the eye and the word "Mason" in the star of David could probably be the work of a Mason, even if the creator of the symbol was not a Mason himself. Does it hint at a conspiracy of Zionist "international bankers" bent on establishing a new world order? No. Could it be the work of an overzealous Mason? In my opinion, definitely possible. More possible in fact than that of coincidence.

I appreciate any intelligent thoughts on this.

There's a lot of pseudohistory in Masonry (duh) and I like being prepared whenever I encounter and provide a brother with the truth (or the next, best thing).

OK - now for a TL;DR description of how one can be both a Mason and a skeptic. Excuse my slipping from third to second to first person POV.
When a guy goes through the first two degrees, he is asked to take certain oaths and obligations. Most of these oaths and obligations are very attractive and agreeable to any male who desires the friendship of other men without having to resort to debasing himself in displays of machismo or oneupmanship ("cock-blocking", in the parlance of our times). Basically, it works well for nice guys who don't want to finish last. You meet nice guys who are there to help you out and you get to help others as well. It's all good. Then at the final stage of the game, in the third degree - you are asked to avow to never be present at the making of a Mason who is either an atheist or what they call an "irreligious libertine" (a horribly irksome phrase). Bear in mind that this is something like the tenth of fifteen obligations you've been asked to take in the 3rd degree. At that point, you're already fully invested and it seems like absolutely nothing for an atheist to answer in the affirmative, at the time, ignoring or perhaps ironically aware that all the others are actually breaking their vows by watching you being made a Mason.

The organization is rife with mysticism and pseudo-history. Sometimes the pseudo-history is raised to a meta level. For instance, they take historical accounts from the Bible and change them to fit the Masonic outlook. But, ultimately when confronting a long standing Mason about the discrepancies, they tend to reply something to the effect that "it's all ********, all of it".

After a while, it's just a bunch of guys drinking and doing their best to keep a live a tradition for it's own sake - almost indistinguishable from any family tradition. The secret work, available on any of a hundred websites, gets handed down, word for word, from memory, from adept to novice. I suppose this is what creates and strengthens the bonds - fraternity, fealty and charity.

That, and the booze and no-limit poker games.

I wonder how many Mason-skeptics exist out there? If you are one, let me know. Maybe we can visit and have a few laughs?

I am currently an Entered Apprentice at St. John's Lodge #9 in Seattle, Wa. I would appreciate any advice, coaching, mentoring or just friendly chat you can spare. Feel free to PM me.

 

[the_snowpooch]

I don’t really see any conflict – It’s been said before that being a skeptic doesn’t have to preclude being a Christian. Is there any part of Freemasonry other than the Christian aspect that would conflict with skepticism?

The "Christian" aspect doesn't actually exist. You can be a wiccan or a pantheist, just as long as you can honestly avow to the existence of a "higher power" (think AA).

As for skepticism, no problem at all. There are basically two groups: those who think the rituals and stuff have some secret, hidden power and those who consider it simple allegory. The preponderance is in the latter camp. I know quite a few brothers with advanced science degrees (like myself) and they have no problem fitting in. There has been a recent upswing in new members hoping to get information on our conspiracies but such is the world these days, what with all the Alex Jones' and the Dan Browns. In a way, a few years of tedious lodge meetings, volunteer work and getting drunk pretty much brainwashes away those fantasies.

 

[the_snowpooch]

That was sudden! Still, good for you.

To be clear - my quitting involved several factors: I moved away from my mother lodge and stopped paying dues. Also, I found the meetings very boring and ended up just going to select social events. I've told many of my lodge brothers and they say they don't care that I'm an atheist, however - some are very much opposed to this identity. They suggested I just claim a belief in "nature" or "energy" but I didn't think I could do that in an honest way.

Odds are, I'll get back into it again. Just not now. I still do volunteer work with them for cancer patients though (driving them to appointments, taking them grocery shopping etc). Makes me feel good.

 

[the_snowpooch]

I am currently an Entered Apprentice at St. John's Lodge #9 in Seattle, Wa. I would appreciate any advice, coaching, mentoring or just friendly chat you can spare. Feel free to PM me.

I've visited your lodge several times.

Advice? I suppose the best thing I can tell you is go for it. Get your 3rd degree and make a run at WM. I have nothing but good memories and I probably learned a lot of useful things about communication and management.

Whenever you get the chance, visit other lodges. This is perhaps the coolest aspect of the craft. I'm not a great traveler but all my visits to lodges in Canada and the US have been great experiences. My most memorable experience was being saved from a severe ass-kicking in New Orleans from a stranger and his friends. The stranger was wearing a square and compasses T-shirt. Two days later I went to lodge with them - a PHA lodge.

My good friend is a very avid visitor. He's been to lodges in England, US, Canada, Germany and Japan. Each place gave him customary food and drink. Many have given him accommodations and even souvenirs.

When you get your 3rd degree, PM me and we'll see about you doing a visit up here (Vancouver). Perhaps even a combination lodge meeting / skeptics meeting if the calender colludes. First pint is on me.

 

[Aquila]

I am both a skeptic (avid, attend a group etc) and a long time Mason (Past Master).

I hope that no one minds that I've revived this thread after 2 months, but I've been away from the forum for a while and just saw it. I'm very interested in the connections between skepticism and Freemasonry, both positive and negative, mainly because our current inspirational leaders in the field of skepticism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer - even Randi himself seem reluctant to mention Masonry outright.
Why?

Am I mistaken here, but it seems that these people have plenty to say about religion, and Sam Harris seems very upset about astrology, but I haven't heard one of them come out and say anything about Freemasonry. Correction, I did see a link on Michael Shermer's Skeptic website to a song about Freemasonry, but that's about all. Is this because they just don't know much about it, or that they do know a lot about it and are, or have been, in fact members of lodges and are worried about getting beaten up if they reveal too much?

Personally I don't see how a skeptic or scientist can, in good conscience, belong to any organization which puts so much emphasis on secrecy. If the root of science and skepticism are evidence and objectivity, how can they be compatible with secrecy?

Imagine two research scientists who belonged to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? I agree that you can't be in both camps.

What about homosexuality. Are gays admitted (and lesbians to co-masonry?) - I've heard that there are separate gay lodges, or is there a "don't ask, don't tell" rule?

 

[dudalb]

I don’t really see any conflict – It’s been said before that being a skeptic doesn’t have to preclude being a Christian. Is there any part of Freemasonry other than the Christian aspect that would conflict with skepticism?

The problem is great many people do equate being a Skeptic with being an Athiest.

 

[dudalb]

I hope that no one minds that I've revived this thread after 2 months, but I've been away from the forum for a while and just saw it. I'm very interested in the connections between skepticism and Freemasonry, both positive and negative, mainly because our current inspirational leaders in the field of skepticism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Michael Shermer - even Randi himself seem reluctant to mention Masonry outright.
Why?

Am I mistaken here, but it seems that these people have plenty to say about religion, and Sam Harris seems very upset about astrology, but I haven't heard one of them come out and say anything about Freemasonry. Correction, I did see a link on Michael Shermer's Skeptic website to a song about Freemasonry, but that's about all. Is this because they just don't know much about it, or that they do know a lot about it and are, or have been, in fact members of lodges and are worried about getting beaten up if they reveal too much?

Personally I don't see how a skeptic or scientist can, in good conscience, belong to any organization which puts so much emphasis on secrecy. If the root of science and skepticism are evidence and objectivity, how can they be compatible with secrecy?

Imagine two research scientists who belonged to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? I agree that you can't be in both camps.

What about homosexuality. Are gays admitted (and lesbians to co-masonry?) - I've heard that there are separate gay lodges, or is there a "don't ask, don't tell" rule?

Because they don't see anything sinister about Masonry?
Because the "secrets" of Masonry are not very secret or evil?
And by your definition, skeptics should not serve in the military because there is a lot of secrecy in any military
Randi and company don't spend a lot of time on Freemasonry because they don't have the time to waste on crap conspriacy theories. They probably think a lot of the Masonic rituals are silly, but also think it is nothing to be concerned about or waste time over.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Imagine two research scientists who belonged to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? I agree that you can't be in both camps.

how does anyone know 2 non-mason scientists arent doing the same thing?

 

[Cuddles]

Is this because they just don't know much about it, or that they do know a lot about it and are, or have been, in fact members of lodges and are worried about getting beaten up if they reveal too much?

It's most likely, as dudalb says, simply that there's nothing for them to say about it. Freemasonry is essentially little more than a social club. Sure, it may be intended to focus more on philosophy and thinking and less on just being a drinking club (although as LightinDarkness says it tends more towards the latter these days), and it may have a longer history and a bunch of assorted silliness to go with it, but that's about it. There's really no more reason for Randi to talk about Freemasonry than there is for him to talk about the working men's club down the road.

Personally I don't see how a skeptic or scientist can, in good conscience, belong to any organization which puts so much emphasis on secrecy.

A large proportion, quite possibly the majority, of science has been done as part of organisations with at least some emphasis on secrecy. The military is the obvious example that has already been mentioned, but pretty much every researcher anywhere will have some restrictions on what they are allowed to share, as well as what they can get from other people.

Think of things like the Manhatten project, or radar, or Ultra (the intelligence from cryptographic work during WW2). Think of the huge fights that have been had over who invented what first, and who should get patents, or even simply who should be credited with discovering a particular equation.

If the root of science and skepticism are evidence and objectivity, how can they be compatible with secrecy?

Very easily. Objectivity is in no way incompatible with secrecy, so I don't see how that's relevant at all. And evidence is evidence no matter when it is presented. There's nothing unscientific in keeping something secret until you're sure it works and can be certain you'll get the credit and the profits. Or in keeping something secret because you'll have an advantage over other people who don't know about it yet.

You can certainly argue about this sort of thing from a moral point of view. The question of whether all knowledge should be open to everyone is actually quite an important subject at the moment, for several reasons. For example, I recently took part in a survey as part of an international investigation of whether all papers should be available online for free rather than requiring journal subscriptions. Then there are other issues such as information potentially useful for terrorists, or even just regular enemies, being kept as secret as possible, while others say that people who really want to will find it anyway so you may as well just publish it all openly.

But the point is, these are all philosophical and social questions, and have nothing to do with whether something is scientific or not.

Imagine two research scientists who belonged to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? I agree that you can't be in both camps.

Imagine two research scientists who didn't belong to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? The simple fact is, we don't. This is why there always have been and always will be examples of fraud in science. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? Remember Wakefield? You don't need imaginary conspiracies to get dishonesty, you just need dishonest people. Sadly, there is no shortage of them.

 

[Mojo]

I am both a skeptic (avid, attend a group etc) and a long time Mason (Past Master).

It's OK as long as you aren't a Freemason On The Land.

 

[dudalb]

It's most likely, as dudalb says, simply that there's nothing for them to say about it. Freemasonry is essentially little more than a social club. Sure, it may be intended to focus more on philosophy and thinking and less on just being a drinking club (although as LightinDarkness says it tends more towards the latter these days), and it may have a longer history and a bunch of assorted silliness to go with it, but that's about it. There's really no more reason for Randi to talk about Freemasonry than there is for him to talk about the working men's club down the road.



A large proportion, quite possibly the majority, of science has been done as part of organisations with at least some emphasis on secrecy. The military is the obvious example that has already been mentioned, but pretty much every researcher anywhere will have some restrictions on what they are allowed to share, as well as what they can get from other people.

Think of things like the Manhatten project, or radar, or Ultra (the intelligence from cryptographic work during WW2). Think of the huge fights that have been had over who invented what first, and who should get patents, or even simply who should be credited with discovering a particular equation.



Very easily. Objectivity is in no way incompatible with secrecy, so I don't see how that's relevant at all. And evidence is evidence no matter when it is presented. There's nothing unscientific in keeping something secret until you're sure it works and can be certain you'll get the credit and the profits. Or in keeping something secret because you'll have an advantage over other people who don't know about it yet.

You can certainly argue about this sort of thing from a moral point of view. The question of whether all knowledge should be open to everyone is actually quite an important subject at the moment, for several reasons. For example, I recently took part in a survey as part of an international investigation of whether all papers should be available online for free rather than requiring journal subscriptions. Then there are other issues such as information potentially useful for terrorists, or even just regular enemies, being kept as secret as possible, while others say that people who really want to will find it anyway so you may as well just publish it all openly.

But the point is, these are all philosophical and social questions, and have nothing to do with whether something is scientific or not.



Imagine two research scientists who didn't belong to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? The simple fact is, we don't. This is why there always have been and always will be examples of fraud in science. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? Remember Wakefield? You don't need imaginary conspiracies to get dishonesty, you just need dishonest people. Sadly, there is no shortage of them.

Not to mention that most scientests employed on project by private companies are expected to keep a lot of their work secret from people not in the company, for the simple reason that the company will want to make money from any discoveries made, and making that public is sort of stupid until you have the patent for the discovery in hand.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Most of this has been answered very well, just a few thoughts -

Imagine two research scientists who belonged to a Masonic lodge. How does anyone know that they aren't falsifying their research data and have agreed to cover for each other? I agree that you can't be in both camps.

Why would you think this? The only secrets freemasons keep have been released since 1725: the passwords and grips. We don't keep the secrets because they are secrets - they are not - its just done to show masons are men of their word. Masons SPECIFICALLY SWEAR not to do the stuff your talking about.

What about homosexuality. Are gays admitted (and lesbians to co-masonry?) - I've heard that there are separate gay lodges, or is there a "don't ask, don't tell" rule?

There is no homosexuality rule I have ever heard of. Gays and lesbians are allowed. No one cares. No one will ask, but we don't care if a member is gay. It just doesn't come up.

 

[jakesteele]

I am both a skeptic (avid, attend a group etc) and a long time Mason (Past Master). I'll address how I rationalize these two seemingly incongruous affiliations at the end of this post.

One thing I have noticed is that some skeptics downplay the Masonic significance of the back of the US one dollar bill. The all seeing eye thing is a well established masonic symbol. We come across this symbol in various degrees (3rd "blue lodge" degree and here and there in the Scottish Rite degrees). It is referenced many times in Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry as being a principle symbol of the craft - basically symbolizing something called "Divine Omniscience".

Freemasonry has more symbols than a Neil Peart drumkit (yeah, groan). The all- seeing eye is one of perhaps fifty that I can identify at a moment's notice. Many have no doubt been co-opted (or in post-modernist terms: appropriated), throughout time. Given the fact that Masons have a long history of involvement in US politics and government, is it so unbelievable that one can find Masonic symbolism on the back of a slip of paper which bears the likeness of an actual Freemason on the front? I know this organization well and I've met more than a few Masons with enough (perhaps too much) zealous love for the fraternity that given the chance, they'd spray paint a square and compasses on Buckingham Palace, if given the chance. Knowing that, it's not a big deal for me to say the eye and the word "Mason" in the star of David could probably be the work of a Mason, even if the creator of the symbol was not a Mason himself. Does it hint at a conspiracy of Zionist "international bankers" bent on establishing a new world order? No. Could it be the work of an overzealous Mason? In my opinion, definitely possible. More possible in fact than that of coincidence.

I appreciate any intelligent thoughts on this.

There's a lot of pseudohistory in Masonry (duh) and I like being prepared whenever I encounter and provide a brother with the truth (or the next, best thing).

OK - now for a TL;DR description of how one can be both a Mason and a skeptic. Excuse my slipping from third to second to first person POV.
When a guy goes through the first two degrees, he is asked to take certain oaths and obligations. Most of these oaths and obligations are very attractive and agreeable to any male who desires the friendship of other men without having to resort to debasing himself in displays of machismo or oneupmanship ("cock-blocking", in the parlance of our times). Basically, it works well for nice guys who don't want to finish last. You meet nice guys who are there to help you out and you get to help others as well. It's all good. Then at the final stage of the game, in the third degree - you are asked to avow to never be present at the making of a Mason who is either an atheist or what they call an "irreligious libertine" (a horribly irksome phrase). Bear in mind that this is something like the tenth of fifteen obligations you've been asked to take in the 3rd degree. At that point, you're already fully invested and it seems like absolutely nothing for an atheist to answer in the affirmative, at the time, ignoring or perhaps ironically aware that all the others are actually breaking their vows by watching you being made a Mason.

The organization is rife with mysticism and pseudo-history. Sometimes the pseudo-history is raised to a meta level. For instance, they take historical accounts from the Bible and change them to fit the Masonic outlook. But, ultimately when confronting a long standing Mason about the discrepancies, they tend to reply something to the effect that "it's all ********, all of it".

After a while, it's just a bunch of guys drinking and doing their best to keep a live a tradition for it's own sake - almost indistinguishable from any family tradition. The secret work, available on any of a hundred websites, gets handed down, word for word, from memory, from adept to novice. I suppose this is what creates and strengthens the bonds - fraternity, fealty and charity.

That, and the booze and no-limit poker games.

I wonder how many Mason-skeptics exist out there? If you are one, let me know. Maybe we can visit and have a few laughs?

Hello, hello, fellow Mason. I'd give the secret word for Entered Apprentice (which I am, currently) but I would suffer that horrible fate! To me there is nothing to reconcile between being a Brother and a skeptic. No one knows any more than anyone else the answers of ultimate questions about Life, the Universe and Everything. And atheist is no better equipped than a theist.

I am beginning the initial stages of the journey and I belong to St. John's Lodge #9 in Seattle, Wa located on Greenwood Ave. in the north part of town in the area of the U of W. I would love to chat and ask you some questions about the Craft. Let's PM each other.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

When it comes to atheists, is there any particular reason for the requirement that you have to believe in some sort of higher power, or is it just tradition?

 

[LightinDarkness]

When it comes to atheists, is there any particular reason for the requirement that you have to believe in some sort of higher power, or is it just tradition?

Well, it depends on the lodge - in many cases there is no requirement to believe in any sort of higher power. Some do require a specific belief in God (although they never tell you what that God is - as long as you believe). Others allow very generic belief in something greater for yourself - which would fit agnostics or atheists who have some sort of belief in general goodness or nature. Still others have no such requirement at all.

The tradition of requiring a belief of some sort is actually connected to many early masons being clergy. Before the enlightenment era even the Catholic Church (GASP!) actively promoted freemasonry. Over time, the requirement has morphed and changed.

I always get a chuckle out of reading anti-mason sites fueled by fundamentalist Christians who claim that we're an atheist arm of the Illuminati, though.

 

[fitzgibbon]

It's most likely, as dudalb says, simply that there's nothing for them to say about it. Freemasonry is essentially little more than a social club.

You toss that off as if it's out-and-out fact which it isn't. Oh certainly like any other gathering, there's a social component. But as mundane as it sounds, it really is about making good men better; better for themselves, their families and their community.

Sure, it may be intended to focus more on philosophy and thinking and less on just being a drinking club (although as LightinDarkness says it tends more towards the latter these days),

I'd differ with LiD on that. It depends on the Lodge and the person. My experience as a Mason of 10 years has been that there's a greater interest in the esoteric than there has been previously and I think that's reflective of a desire within society for something more grounded.

and it may have a longer history and a bunch of assorted silliness to go with it, but that's about it. There's really no more reason for Randi to talk about Freemasonry than there is for him to talk about the working men's club down the road.

As you care to see it. I think your take on it is a bit flippant and does a disservice to actuality. I don't see Randi talking about Freemasonry simply because there isn't a Sylvia Brown-equivalent that needs debunking.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Fitz, I would say there is more interest in the upcoming generation of masons in the esoteric side of the society. Which, I think is good. Masons in the 18-35 range seem to be very interested in the philosophy of the fraternity. I would agree there is a definite shift away from being a dinner club - which is a shift that occurred after members of the WWII generation became members.

Still, it really varies between lodges in my experience. In my own home lodge we are very into the philosophy of freemasonry. We still have dinners and we still do charity, but no one thinks that is the goal of the fraternity in and of itself. To that end, we don't have a dress code and try to keep any such barriers to entry (which is what a dress code is IMO, especially for blue collar workers who might have to come straight from work) low. The dinners are a casual affairs - hotdogs and burgers usually.

Across town, we have what I call the dinner masons who enforce a strict, tux-only dress code that have catered dinners and do very good ritual. The fees are high to accommodate all this. But there is no thirst for the philosophy behind the ritual.

I very much look forward to freemasonry returning to a esoteric society concerned with philosophy. I think we are getting there. I will take deep, meaningful discussion of the multiple layers of meaning behind the Hiram legend over a hotdog and beer over a four star dining experience talking about what other people are wearing. But its going to take a while.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Personally I don't see how a skeptic or scientist can, in good conscience, belong to any organization which puts so much emphasis on secrecy. If the root of science and skepticism are evidence and objectivity, how can they be compatible with secrecy?

it just occurred to me, randi is also a magician, and magicians are of course notable for keeping the details of how their tricks are performed a very closely guarded secret.

so how do you reconcile this secrecy with skepticism? and why can it not also reconcile the secrecy in freemasonry?

 

[Aikenhead]

When it comes to atheists, is there any particular reason for the requirement that you have to believe in some sort of higher power, or is it just tradition?

I realize that I'm late to the discussion, but I don't think your question was really addressed. As an active Freemason, perhaps I can explain how and why a belief in a "higher power" is required today in Anglo-masonry. (As others have explained, it's not a requirement in many other jurisdictions outside of the US and Britain.)

There are many different claims made for Masonry's origins, with the two most popular being that they were the descendants of the Knights Templar, or of medieval stonemason guilds, which were, in a sense, co-opted by non-masons for a number of practical reasons. We generally acknowledge the latter as being more historically accurate. However, it is important to remember that neither the Knights Templar nor medieval stonemasons were particularly religious (indeed, the former were routinely charged with heresy) and, both groups having traveled around to different areas, would have more likely become "contaminated" by different -- even heretical -- ideas. So, there's no support for either of these alleged progenitors of Freemasonry being particularly pious, believing in any particular "higher power", or passing it on to Freemasonry.

There's no doubt that one of the most important influences on the foundation of Freemasonry was the Enlightenment. I doubt that I need to remind anyone that this movement was anything but populated by devout believers; a look at the list of its main personalities shows just the opposite. So if you accept that Freemasonry was begun by Enlightenment freethinkers who used stonemasons' guilds for their formal structure, there's no reason to place any emphasis on a belief in a "higher power" in early Freemasonry.

So where did it come from? I think that there are four main sources.

First, as soon as Freemasonry had any public visibility, it was seen as a threat to existing powers; mainly the Church and the Crown (which was usually indivisible from the Church, as in Britain, where the King/Queen was also head of the Church). Because of this, the easiest charge for those powers to make was that Freemasonry was irreligious or even blasphemous. And, when faced with that sort of pressure, the easiest response is "Oh no we're not; we're good, god-fearing men!" Unfortunately, that has been the response from the leaders of Freemasonry whenever those charges have been trotted out over the past 3 centuries.

Second, some of the early key figures in Freemasonry have been religious men, such as James Anderson, whose eponymous "Constitutions" are important documents. Anderson was a Presbyterian minister who became a Mason, and his religious background seems to have colored his views of what Freemasonry should be. It was he who wrote "...a Mason...will never be a stupid atheist..." Notwithstanding the fact that atheists probably tend to be less stupid than the average theist, this passage seems to contradict Anderson's own words in the same paragraph: to "admit(s) into the Fraternity all that are good and true; whereby it hath brought about the Means of Reconciliation amongst Persons, who, without that Assistance, would have remained at perpetual Variance." And many of the most brilliant Freemasons of the time (d'Alembert, d'Holbach, Diderot, de Condorcet, de Missy, Helvetius, et al) were indeed atheists, albeit not in the same jurisdiction as Anderson.

A third reason for requiring a belief in a "higher power" is because Masons have to take a number of vows, not least of which to keep the secrets of Freemasonry inviolate. (One of the main reasons for this is rather mundane: because Freemasonry is based upon trust, since a Mason will always try to help brother Mason in a time of need; something that can and has been exploited by men falsely claiming to be Masons.) It was believed that the most solemn and binding vow one could take would be with a "supreme being" as your witness. That was even true in the courts of law until recently, where one had to swear an oath to "god" to make one's testimony true.

The fourth reason may seem a bit cynical, but there was a commonly held utilitarian belief that religion had the effect of making people "good", which is to say "behave themselves" and not break laws. This was exemplified by Benjamin Franklin who supported just about any religious project that entered his sphere, even though he was a doubter and at best, a deist. This "moralizing effect" of religion in a nation that was large and growing, but had very few constables for law enforcement, seemed to make sense at the time. And likewise, if religious belief made people "good", it thus would make Masons "better".

It's important to remember that at the time of Freemasonry's greatest early growth (say, 1720-1820), there was no viable alternative cosmology to theism or deism. Even the greatest thinkers of the day (Voltaire, Franklin, et al) wanted to get as far away from theism as possible, but could only go as far as deism; the lack of any other "first cause" limited them. Had they lived 50 years later, after Darwin and other scientists were able to demonstrate an entirely naturalistic cosmology, they would surely have been atheists.

Finally, when any institution survives as long as Freemasonry has, it builds up its own resistance to change. Even though many of the Masons who I know well would register at least 5 on the Dawkins Scale, we also understand that it's very difficult to change an international organization of millions that has, as one of its chief appeals, an illustrious tradition. And even if any given Grand Lodge in the US were to break with tradition and no longer require a belief in a "supreme being", they would lose their recognition with the Mother Lodge of Freemasonry, the United Grand Lodge of England, who are determined to at least pay lip service to "belief" until the end of time. That recognition is not something that most Grand Lodges are willing to risk losing.

So, there you have it. I hope this helps clear up any confusion on the subject. Let me know if you have any further questions.

 

[timhau]

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their site?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!

And here I was, thinking that you're our benevolent overlords.