The Grand Architect

At the beginning of July, I subscribed to The Humanist -- an online magazine and resource for people interested in secular humanism (a life philosophy which embraces ethics and morals without religion), and noticed that they have a weekly advice column called "The Ethical Dilemma." Well, as it turns out, I did have such a dilemma and decided to submit it; whereupon I was told by the columnist, Joan Reisman-Brill, that she was excited to have such a question and that it would appear sometime in the near future.

And so I waited, with baited breath. And finally, this past Friday, it was featured! And so now I am finally able to discuss the issue. Here is the question:

I find myself in a precarious position. I began joining the Freemasons before I de-converted from Christianity. I find myself teetering between whether I am an atheist or an agnostic theist (one who believes that there may be a god, but that's about it). The Freemasons, while respectful of other religious beliefs, are overtly Judeo-Christian and do not tolerate atheists.

Now that I am a full-on member, I really am enjoying my time with this fraternal organization, its members, history, and structure. But part of me feels like I am "in the closet" and so I'm not quite sure how I feel. Have you any good advice for someone in such an odd spot?

The response I received was very well thought out and provided some good insight:

I really don't know much about the mostly-male and secretive Freemasons, but the Freemason website says, "You believe in a Supreme Being--no atheist can become a Mason--but we are not concerned with theological distinctions or your particular religious beliefs." You were still a believer when you declared your belief in a supreme being, and even now, as you waver between atheist and agnostic theist, you retain a sliver of belief. So it sounds like you're good, with or without god. (For readers not familiar with Freemasonry, check out the segment about it on CBS Sunday Morning.)

Could you discreetly probe what your group's policy is toward members who (hypothetically, of course) lose their belief sometime after they are already members? Would such a person be honor-bound to leave the group, or would the group be compelled to eject such a person, even if he is in every other respect in good standing?

Regardless of the answer, if you are enjoying the organization, why not keep enjoying it and keep your doubts to yourself? The website states that Freemasons do not discuss religion, so now that you are long past the pledge stage, questions about your current state of belief shouldn't even arise.

This may be naive, but perhaps after you've been a member for some time, even if you were to fully embrace atheism, there might not be any repercussions if your non-belief became known.

And probably even more naive, perhaps one day you might lead a movement to alter the by-laws to include atheists. After all, it is called "Free" masons.

I take the advice to heart, and believe that it will help me in my journey with the Masons. And something else which will help me: the overwhelming response received to the article by readers on the website and on Facebook!

True, there were many negative remarks, many off topic, many discussing and debating the details and conspiracies of Masonry. I was expecting those. I was, however, not expecting the number of Masons who expressed that atheists / agnostics should not be excluded or disfellowshipped. And what really floored me is that several Masons responded who are, themselves, atheist / agnostic!

"I am a Mason. I would note that Masons do not require a belief in a specific definition of Supreme Being. That leaves a lot of room. Most physicists hold that something preceded creation; they call it the laws of physics. You say the laws of physics; I say Supreme Being."

"...realize that while you may be the only atheist in your Lodge, you are not the only one in Freemasonry. We just don't discuss it."

"The earliest Masons were pretty much all freethinkers and deists."

"I am a 32 degree Mason and see no problem with atheists in the Lodge."

Just a small sampling of the more positive comments made.

To those not in the know, the Free and Accepted Masons are an overtly religious organization (as are the higher levels of York and Scottish rites). I fully anticipate that one day I will most likely be excommunicated because of my increasing outspokenness against organized religion and the ignorance it propagates -- especially as I continue to work toward providing resources and help for questioning Christians and recent deconverts.

My own lodge's Worshipful Master took me aside the other day (knowing that I am teetering with religious belief) and told me that he knows of at least one atheist in a sister lodge, and that some people know and others don't. He survives by keeping his mouth shut around the brethren -- a hint given me not as a warning but as a survival tactic. My WM knows me, and knows that my heart is in it (even if my soul is not). And for that I am truly grateful.

Of all the positive comments posted on Facebook, this one was by far the most important to me:

"I'm a Freemason and I don't believe in anything supernatural. I don't believe in a personal god, but I also don't have a problem with using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe, which govern all things."

Please indulge me as I contemplate this for a moment.

In the Masons, we talk about the "Grand Architect of the Universe" -- hyperbole for "god." And this is where it gets uncomfortable for me, because I'm not even sure that there is such a being. We are asked, when we take oaths, "in whom do you put your trust?" Naturally, the correct response is "god."

What if "god" is a man-made concept? Then we are putting our trust in an invention, and then invoking that invention. There is no evidence for god, for a supernatural creator of the universe, for a spiritual being who interacts with humanity.

But there is evidence for science.

In fact, science itself is based upon reason, logic, theories, and evidence. It is based upon everything that makes up the universe. It is based upon how the universe functions. Human ingenuity and spirit drive science. And science drives human ingenuity and spirit. It is a beautiful cycle, made even more majestic and potent by the fact that science will continue on, even without human interaction.

I can completely get behind that. In whom do I put my trust? In physics, math, biology, history, evolution, atoms, quarks, relativity, stars, planets, space, oceans, mountains, rain, hydrogen, sunsets, gravity, air, moon dust, spacecraft, black holes, bacteria, reason, and on and on. In science. In god.

Until next Monday,

Frank

PS: I am not expressing a belief in pantheism -- that everything is god and god is everything. Nor am I proffering that science is, itself, a deity. I am simply expounding on "using the term 'god' to refer to the totality of the laws of the universe."

Evolution

Yesterday I finished reading a fun little book called "Then Why Do I have Toenails", written by Thom Phelps. Originally started as a letter to a fanatical Christian friend (an interesting story in and of itself), it proved to be an interesting and amusing foray into the mind of an atheist.

True, it wasn't the best-written book I've read this year (though I have certainly read worse), but it did make its point, and made it well. Plus it gave me a new phrase for my repertoire: "C&E Christian" – a Christian who attends church only twice a year, on Christmas and Easter. I believe he used this in a similar way to my own "CINO" (Christian In Name Only).

The question of toenails really only plays a very small role in the book. I believe the title was chosen specifically to cause inquiry and curiosity; on that particular level, it worked. Why, the reader is forced to ask, do people believe in creationism when animals and plants and humans have vestigial organs?

I spent a few minutes Googling today, to see what bits and pieces may be left over from the evolutionary process. As it turns out, there is a broad spectrum of vestigial organs across this planet, far too many to be conveniently explained away by creationism.

In humans alone, there are male nipples, toenails, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, sinuses, the appendix, the coccyx, part of the large intestine, and apparently a little bit of a third eyelid. We also have vestigial reflexes like goosebumps and babies grasping anything placed in their palms.

In the animal kingdom, you can find flightless birds, fish with feet, snakes with pelvises, blind species who still have eyes, or my personal favorite: whales with leg bones.

Before my deconversion from Christianity, I was a die-hard creationist. I believed in the literal six-day creation as outlined in Genesis, I believed that evolution was a lie, and I believed that schools teaching evolution should also be required to teach Intelligent Design as an acceptable alternative.

But now that I've removed the filters of religion and have started to question the motives of evolutionary scientists versus religious pundits (I realize now that science is not trying to hide truth, but discover it; whereas religion is trying to hide discovery under the guise of truth), I see and understand that we are all part of a huge, growing, changing system. It is awesome, and amazing, and beautiful, and deadly, and scary – all at the same time!

Why are so many fundamentalist Christians diametrically opposed to the idea of evolution?

For starters, they just don't have the correct information. One of the many problems with church hierarchy is that one person (or a small group of select people) are in charge of dictating the information their parishioners and parochial-school students receive. In most cases, those parishioners and students simply accept the information given to them without much, if any, further research because they trust the supplier of the information is telling the truth or is knowledgeable (this is called the Argument from Authority). The problem here is obvious: if incorrect information is being disseminated, and no one is fact-checking, then the cycle of ignorance continues.

But the major reason why fundie Christians reject evolution is because they are literalists, which means they absolutely believe the creation myth (in other words, they are die-hard creationists), and since creation and evolution are mutually exclusive and contradictory viewpoints, and they are fundamentalist, they choose religion over science.

From the fundamentalist point of view, evolution brings death into the world before sin; but the bible indicates death is the punishment for sin, so no death could have existed before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. And anyway, if the bible is lying about this, at the very beginning of the book, then what else could it be lying about? No, creationism must be true because otherwise the entire book is suspect and we cannot have our faith called into question, science and reason be damned.

The fact of the matter is this: science is continuously giving answers based upon evidence. If the evidence contradicts what is known, science is smart enough to try to figure out why and flexible enough to change its precepts. It isn't afraid to say "I don't know" because it always follows up with "but I will try to find out."

Religion, on the other hand, cannot give answers based upon evidence: only faith. If evidence contradicts faith, it is usually the evidence which is the first to be chucked out. Christianity rarely changes its precepts, which is why there are so many denominations: if one does not agree, one leaves and starts one's own church. Well at least the religious are not above admitting lack of knowledge, but there is almost always the caveat: "we cannot know the mind of god" or something similar. 

Given these things, science will always triumph over religion. On the topic of this post, science can nearly perfectly explain vestigial organs by evolution, creationism cannot. In fact, here are the two most common responses used by religion on this topic:

1. The organs (and reflexes) in question initially had an important function, but have lost that functionality over time.

2. Science has not yet discovered the function or purpose of those organs (and reflexes).

Please indulge me for a moment as I point out the hypocrisy of these two responses. The first is using evolution to disprove evolution. The second is using the scientific process to disprove the scientific process. It is becoming increasingly the case that Christians are abandoning the literalist interpretation of Genesis and embracing the scientific understanding of evolution.

I hope the trend continues. People need to wake up and come to terms with how the universe actually works, god or no. And when they do? Who knows... perhaps one day religion itself will also be vestigial.

Until next Monday,

Frank

Quotes

Today is a very tragic day.

Robin Williams was found dead of an apparent suicide, and I am completely heartbroken. Here is what I posted on Facebook earlier:

I mean, I'm just absolutely floored. I keep hoping that it is some elaborate prank. I would have NEVER guessed Robin Williams - the GREAT Robin Williams - would have not only suffered from depression, but to the point of actually exterminating his brilliant and unique life.

I could cope with it being an accident, a murder, a heart attack; but not suicide. I can't help but feel we have really lost one of the greats here. I mean, just wow.

We've had record-breaking flooding here in and around Detroit, to the point that I probably won't be able to get to work tomorrow (thankfully I can work from home when necessary). Here is a picture of the expressway only 2 miles from my residence:

And another from near downtown Detroit:

I have a full day of training on Wednesday, on a product I don't even use (though, in theory, I will be using at some indeterminate date in the future). And I have a big project due next week, the shoulders on which my future career partly rests.

This is all too much. To be honest, I don't have the energy to write a proper post today. So instead, I will grace you with a few quotes I have been saving for such a rainy day as this.

Share, and enjoy.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen F. Roberts)

Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? (Epicurus)

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Christopher Hitchens)

Until next Monday,
Frank

Shocking

This past week my sister and her girlfriend loaned me their copy of "Religulous," a documentary by Bill Maher. (The name is a portmanteau of "religious" and "ridiculous.") Many people know that I am not a Maher fan, simply because he can be a complete dick with such little effort. Yet I agreed to watch it.

He did tone down his normally dickish tendencies for the documentary -- for the most part. There were a few moments I found myself yelling at the television for Maher being slightly unfair to his interviewees.

But for the most part, I did find it to be a rather refreshing (if not comedic) look into just how ridiculous religious adherents can be sometimes. His documentary did a fairly decent job at showcasing the (often willing) ignorance of those who accept as literal, the teachings of their holy books.

It was slightly embarrassing, because I used to be like that.

A few weeks prior, I watched an interesting documentary from 1972 called "Marjoe." The crew followed around one-time child preacher Marjoe Gortner (the second portmanteau of this post: "Mary" and "Joseph") as he engaged in one last hurrah on the pentecostal circuit -- he didn't want to swindle any longer and wanted to expose how charismatic evangelists manipulate their audiences into parting ways with their wallets.

The songs were familiar; the preaching styles, the repetitive words, the healings, the dancing, the speaking in tongues -- all familiar to me, as I had converted to a pentecostal branch of Christianity in 2000. To be honest, my jaw dropped several times as I realized that I had, in the pentecostal church, been prey to the same exact methods Marjoe was employing.

Speaking of jaw-dropping, I just finished Christopher Hitchens' book "god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." I was shocked. I was just absolutely, horrifyingly shocked at how the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have behaved throughout history, all by way of justification of their beliefs.

(Side note: I discovered through this book and through videos on YouTube that I absolutely adore Hitchens and was subsequently grieved to learn of his untimely passing a few years ago.)

This education, which I received over the last three weeks, has caused me to change my tune: I no longer believe that religion is necessarily a good or innocuous thing. It had its place, eons ago, before the human mind had enough compiled data to be able to see what is going on; but in today's world it is a vestigial mental process. For the sake of humanity, we must let it go; if we don't, we will end up destroying ourselves.

When confronted with the ignorance, with the manipulation, with the atrocities, the usual answers are "It was part of god's plan," or "God's ways are higher," or "They weren't a TRUE Christian," or "They weren't following god's word," or "That was so long ago, it doesn't matter today," or the like. Glossing over a ruinous past by brushing it aside. Shirking any responsibility for the religion's report card.

And yet, those things did happen. And on some level they are still happening today -- a topic upon which I plan to expound in a future post.

I grieve that I spent so many years of my life buying into what was being sold over the pulpit. I am ashamed that, as a Christian, I did not read my own holy book to discover for myself the true nature of the god of the bible; and I'm even more ashamed that I glossed over the atrocities therein and those committed by Christians throughout human history by justifying the actions as being part of some grand design of a loving god. I am an intelligent human being, I have a brain and deductive reasoning skills, and I am guilty. Shame on me.

And shame on those who continue following, just like I did, without questioning.

Until next Monday,

Frank