|
Table of
Contents
Humanism
Secularism
Misconceptions concerning Humanism, Secularism,
and Atheism
Modern Free-Masonry
God and the Bible
References
What do Modern
Free-Masonry, Humanism, and Secularism have in common? The answer
to this question lies in the analysis of the key principles of these
three philosophies, and as we shall see, there is more in common
between them than what one might suspect. This essay will demonstrate
that Modern Free-Masonry, as exemplified by the Grand Orient of
the United States, the Grand Orient of France, and the original
Modern Free-Masons of 18th century Europe, are fundamentally humanist
and secular in nature, differentiated from Humanism and Secularism
by their focus on brotherhood and ritual.
Humanism
Let's start with Humanism. According to the American Humanist Association:
"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired
by art, and motivated by compassion. It affirms the dignity of
each human being and supports individual liberty consonant with
social and planetary responsibility. Humanism advocates participatory
democracy, the open society, human rights, and social justice.
Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as part of
nature and holds that all values- be they religious, ethical,
social, or political - have their source in human nature, experience,
and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human
need and interest rather than from theological and ideological
abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility
for its own destiny" (1).
We can summarize this worldview with the following values and principles:
- Progressive
philosophy of life
- Without theism
and free of supernaturalism
- Ethics and
the greater good of humanity
- Rational
philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated
by compassion
- Human dignity
- Individual
liberty
- Democracy,
open society, human rights, and social justice
- Values rooted
in human nature, experience, and culture
Humanism in
light of the above is clearly framed as a natural philosophy, where
ethics and the pursuit of knowledge are grounded in empiricism,
reason, and human experience. However, this is not just an epistemology
or theory of how we seek and validate knowledge, but also a moral
philosophy centered on egalitarian values, which are rooted in the
age of enlightenment and deeply immersed in the notion of individual
freedom and the intrinsic value of human beings.
According to the Council for Secular Humanism, secular humanism
(closely related to humanism) is based on the following elements
and principles (2):
- A conviction
that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political
or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not
simply accepted on faith.
- Commitment
to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific
methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking
solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
- A primary
concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the
individual and humankind in general.
- A constant
search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge
and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
- A concern
for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through
better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual
and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ
from us.
- A search
for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical
conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being
and individual responsibility.
- A conviction
that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and
tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for
ourselves and our children.
Similar to the
definition of Humanism, these principles emphasize critical reasoning
and science, ethical conduct, tolerance, the growth of humanity,
and individual responsibility. This again reinforces the natural
philosophy worldview, where our beliefs and values are fundamentally
"human" or rooted in human experience and reason rather
than supernatural or religious foundations.
Secularism
Now we turn to a more general philosophy that is strongly affiliated
with Humanism, and that is Secularism. The Secular Coalition for
America, in its "Position Statement and Statement on Freedom
of Conscience" and "Religious Tolerance" (3), affirms
the following principles and values:
- Reason and
science as the most reliable methods for understanding the universe
and improving the human condition
- The pursuit
of knowledge, meaning, and responsible ethical codes without reference
to supernatural forces
- Freedom of
conscience, including religious freedom, is a fundamental American
value
- Secular government
- Religious
tolerance to all religions and to those without religious beliefs
The Council
for Secular Humanism also provides background on the term "secularism":
"Coined in 1841 by English freethinker George Jacob Holyoake
(1817-1906), who defined it as 'the extension of freethought in
ethics.' Plainly, Holyoake intended something very like the synthesis
of unbelief and rational ethics seen today in secular humanism
(2).
The notion of the synthesis of unbelief and rational ethics is interesting
in that it poses a potential contradiction of ideas. On the one
hand, we have skepticism, which could serve as a basis for rejecting
all speculative worldviews; and on the other hand, we have the affirmation
of ethical behavior based on human reason, which ultimately though
not self-evidently rests on speculation (otherwise we are forced
to admit that the validity of human reason is itself based on human
reason, which is circular). However, practically speaking, there
is no contradiction in questioning speculative, metaphysical, and
supernatural worldviews, while at the same time promoting humanist
ethics. We base this latter point not from an epistemological standpoint
suggesting objective truths, but from the practical standpoint that
we share the desire to flourish and promote the well being of human
beings. The rational facet of ethics then becomes a system of practical
reasoning, whereby we use our common desires as a basis for inferring
moral principles.
Finally, if we review the entry for Secularism in Wikipedia (4),
which draws from many sources, we glean the following:
- Governmental
practices or institutions should exist separately from religion
and/or religious beliefs.
- Critical
of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human
progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather
than on reason and the scientific method.
- Secularism
draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers
such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, Enlightenment thinkers like
Denis Diderot, Voltaire, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson,
and Thomas Paine.
What we can
see from the above sources is that Secularism bears a strong resemblance
to Humanism, with a strong emphasis on separation of church and
state, reason and science, and freedom of conscience. Again we find
a worldview strongly based on natural philosophy, where we approach
life's most critical philosophical questions from the standpoint
of "human" reason and experience, and where supernaturalism,
religious dogma, and superstition are kept separate from the establishment
of knowledge and morality.
Misconceptions concerning Humanism, Secularism, and Atheism
Before moving on to the principles and values of Modern Free-Masonry,
we must address two common misunderstandings of Secularism and Humanism,
which are that all humanists and secularists are atheists, and both
of these philosophies are inherently "anti-religious"
in the sense that they aim to abolish religion or prevent people
from expressing their religious beliefs. This latter assumption
commits the fallacy of assuming that because a worldview does not
rely on religious or supernatural principles that it must somehow
aim to suppress religion or supernaturalism, or more harshly wish
to prevent others from expressing their religious and supernatural
viewpoints. However, not only is this assumption a generalization,
but it confuses the aims and scope of humanism and secularism.
For one, we can see, based on how Humanism and Secularism are defined,
that the two stress religious tolerance, individual liberty, or
freedom of conscience, which ultimately contract the possibility
of being "anti-religion.", "anti-God", or the
aim of abolishing all religion. In order to uphold individual freedoms
and freedom of conscience, one must also tolerate expression of
all worldviews, religious or not. Both Humanism and Secularism clearly
promote the use of reason, rationality, and scientific thinking
to answer some of the most fundamental questions regarding ourselves
and the universe, and both imply an approach that is "without"
faith, superstition, and mysticism. However, choosing one method
or approach over another does not at all imply, by any degree of
common sense or logic that all other methods or approaches ought
to be abolished or not freely expressed. Hence, Humanism and Secularism
are not at all anti-religious in the sense just explained; rather
they simply do not rely on religion or the supernatural to define
their worldview or approaches.
The confusion in light of the aims of humanism and secularism are
likely based on the fact that these two philosophies tend to promote
detaching religious dogma and supernaturalism from morality, scientific
enquiry, and government institutions. The reasons for this "detachment"
have nothing to do with a general desire to abolish religious dogma
or to prevent others from expressing it, but are based on the consensus
among humanists and secularists that religious dogma and supernaturalism
hinder out ability to progress and flourish as a modern society.
In the context of separation of church and state, this false accusation
that humanists and secularists are somehow "anti-religious"
illuminates the irony of adherents of religious dogma claiming that
they are victims of discrimination because they are not allowed
to express their dogma in a government institution. They fail to
conceptualize the implications of their actions in the larger context
of human rights and freedoms. Embracing human rights fundamentally
means that there will be times when we have to restrict or circumscribe
some individual freedoms to prevent restricting the rights of others.
This requires the ability to prioritize the outcomes and impacts
of our actions and consider the overall balance of human rights.
The claim that all humanists and secularists are atheists is also
entirely flawed and ungrounded. Conversely, theism is simply the
belief in "God" or gods, which in itself does not contradict
using a secular approach to making ethical decisions and seeking
knowledge. Certainly, if we couple theism with religious dogma that
professes faith-based knowledge and proscribes ethical behavior
that contradicts the principle of separation of church and state
and other humanist values, then there are clearly conflicts with
Humanism and Secularism. But this is not an issue of theism and
atheism, but with religious dogma and confusing theism with religion.
Theism, by and in itself, is not directly inconsistent with Humanism
and Secularism, for a simple belief in a deity does not proscribe
an entire anti-secular worldview.
The phrase "without theism" in the context of the principles
of Humanism and Secularism pertains more to the methods that these
worldviews use to ground ethics and the quest for knowledge, as
opposed to what an individual must believe in light of the existence
of god(s). Therefore, not all humanists and secularists are committed
to atheism. Put another way, one does not have to be an atheist
to support separation of church and state, otherwise any person
who thinks that children should not receive religious instruction
in public schools would have to be an atheist, which is not the
case. One does not have to be an atheist to promote the use of reason
and science to lead ethical lives or answer life's most fundamental
questions, otherwise many of the most influential and prominent
scientists and philosophers in history would all be atheists, which
is not the case. And one does not have to be an atheist to believe
in the freedom of conscience, human rights, and liberty for all,
otherwise a good portion of the human race would be atheists, which
is not the case. In other words, one need not subscribe to atheism
to embrace the fundamental tenets of Humanism and Secularism, because
none of these principles directly contradicts the simple and isolated
belief in god(s). Theism is simply not a part of the equation here,
and it is kept separate from the general approach of Humanism and
Secularism, just as humanists and secularists argue that religious
dogma ought to be kept separate from government. This is not anti-theism,
but non-theism and non-atheism.
Modern Free-Masonry
We will now define the key characteristics of Modern Free-Masonry
by examining two sources: the Grand Orient of France and the Grand
Orient of the United States. Modern
Free-Masonry expresses the motto of "Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity," but when we review the philosophy behind the Grand
Orient of France (5), it goes much deeper than this. From its "Observatory
of Freedom of Conscience" we can derive the following key values
and principles:
- Independence
of the state and all public services from any religious institution
or influence
- Absolute
freedom of conscience
- Freedom of
the mind
- Liberation
in regard to all dogmas
- The right
to believe or not to believe in God
- Autonomy
of thought concerning religious, political and economical constraints
- Emancipation
of life styles in relation to taboos, prevailing ideas and dogmatic
rules.
- Mutual tolerance
and the respect of others as well as oneself
- Refusal of
racism
- Integration,
not simulation of diverse ethnic groups
- Equal rights
and equal chances
At this point,
these values should appear familiar to the reader. We again see
an emphasis of separation of church and state, equality, tolerance,
and extreme individual liberties in regard to religion. Now let's
turn to the American extension of European Modern Free-Masonry,
namely the Grand Orient of the United States. Here we find the following
key principles and values:
- Freedom of
conscience of all people, and that it is an essential component
of liberty, equality and fraternity
- Separation
of religion and government, and religious and spiritual tolerance
among all people.
- Freedom of
the press as a necessary component of maintaining the inalienable
rights of all human beings, and that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
- The need
for higher education and life-long learning
- An impartial
judiciary system as essential to guaranteeing the preservation
of human rights
- Arts and
sciences as essential elements in the progress and evolution of
humanity
- Efforts that
work towards global environmental and ecological sustainability
as essential to the survival of the human species
Again, the reader
should see more familiar ideas here, given our prior review of Humanism
and Secularism, now with the introduction of higher education, science,
an impartial judiciary system, and global environment and ecological
sustainability.
We can now summarize our comparison of Modern Free-Masonry, Humanism,
and Secularism. It should be evident now that the intersection of
the principles and values of these three philosophies, focusing
particularly on the Grand Orient of France and the United States,
is more than just a few points of similarity. On the contrary, it
appears that Modern Free-Masonry aligns to most all of the principles
of Humanism and Secularism. All three worldviews promote freedom
of conscience (thought and expression), separation of church and
state, education, scientific enquiry, individual liberty, ethics
rooted in reason and the human experience, tolerance, and human
rights.
Some obvious points of divergence between Modern Free-Masonry and
both Humanism and Secularism are the use of ritual amongst Freemasons,
the study of Masonic history and symbols, and the fact that Freemasonry
is a fraternity (though one can find a strong sense of fraternity
in some secular oriented clubs and organizations).
Moreover, we are not limited to the Grand Orient of France and the
Grand Orient of the United States for our comparison. It should
come as no surprise that there are modern Masonic orders today that
strongly promote humanist and secular values, for if we examine
the historical context in which 18th century speculative Freemasonry
flourished and originated, namely the age of enlightenment, we again
observe strong humanist and secularist values that were either championed
and/or originated by Free-Masons such as Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire.
What this suggests is that secular and humanist Free-Masonry is
not unique to just the Grand Orient of France and the United States.
In her "The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions,"
Margaret Jacob explains how when the Catholic Church in Europe condemned
Freemasonry in 1738 as being a quasi religion, this fueled positioning
lodges as more secular and progressive. And by 1750 being a Freemason
depicted embracing the new enlightened ideas of the time (7), which
included but were not restricted to separation of church and state,
egalitarian values, and a view of the universe and human morality
based on reason and rational methodologies.
Another piece of evidence supporting that European Freemasonry of
the 18th century was definitively secular is the comparison of pocket
almanacs of both Masons and the general public, as documented by
Jacob:
"One remarkable feature stands out that separates most Masonic
diaries from those aimed at a general audience. Most general diaries
contained pious sentiments that invoked religious pieties and Godly
thoughts. Not the Masonic ones. In large measure their publishers
cast the contents of diaries aimed at the fraternity in decidedly
secular terms" (7).
Hence, as we can see, the secular and humanist character of Free-Masonry
is not an innovation by any means, but an essential feature of the
origins of early 18th century speculative Free-Masonry. Modern Free-Masonry
of today serves to maintain this progressive worldview, in which
being strictly secular (not just in name) is indispensible toward
the advancement and betterment of humanity.
God and the Bible
What does a secular and humanist Masonic order have to say on the
topic of the Bible and "God"? At this point, the answer
should be clear, and it would be abundantly clear to any humanist
or secularist. To be truly secular, a lodge cannot require initiates
to declare nor deny belief in god(s) or a supreme being, which is
certainly the case for both the Grand Orient of France and the Grand
Orient of the United States. The Grand Orient of France made this
very clear in their declaration of the freedom of conscience in
1877, which was a partial basis for the more religiously oriented
"antient" Freemasons declaring them "irregular"
(8)(9). Nor can a secular lodge require the use the Bible in its
rituals and obligations, because this violates the principle of
freedom of conscience (to freely choose which moral philosophy one
chooses to lead his or her life) and the point that humanism and
secularism are "without" religion. Importantly, there
is historical precedent for this as well, not just limited to the
Grand Orients of France and the United States. According to Paul
Bessel's research:
"The great principle of freemasonry in the 1700s was that
it allowed men much greater freedom of conscience than most institutions
had until that time, and this included tolerance of all religious
attitudes within masonry. It was not until 1760 (forty-three years
after the premier grand lodge was formed ) that the Grand Lodge
of England changed its rules to require the Bible on lodge altars
(until then Anderson's Constitutions was acceptable), and originally
candidates were not asked to express a belief in God ('the laws
and ritual of the original Grand Lodge in 1723 required no more
of its initiates on the subject of religion than that they should
be good men and true, men of honor and honesty, obeying the moral
law')" (8).
We can further reinforce the view that the origins of speculative
Free-Masonry were secular by reviewing the list of "complaints"
that the rival "antient" and non-secular Masons waged
against the earlier Modern Free-Masons. Among these charges were
the observations that the Moderns de-Christianized Masonic rituals,
ignored the Saints Days, the rejected of the Royal Arch degree (which
was overtly Christian), and perhaps omitted prayers (10).
Hence, we can see that the first Modern Free-Masons did not themselves
require candidates to believe in God, nor did they require the use
of the Bible in their lodges. These requirements would not come
into play until the "antient" Masons instilled more religiously
conservative principles and requirements into their rival form of
Masonry, which is what we see as the predominant Masonic order in
the United States and the United Kingdom.
Perhaps the most simple and concise way to position the Bible and
belief in god(s), in light of Modern Free-Masonry and humanist and
secular values, is to state that the order does not intend, in any
way or manner, to replace, substitute, or reinforce any religious
beliefs or dogma. What this means is that god(s) and the Bible are
completely independent and outside of the order, as they must be
if Modern Free-Masonry intends to draw human beings together under
a common cause, yet at the same time tolerate the diversity of potentially
contradictory viewpoints on religion and god(s).
References
- American
Humanist Association. Website: http://www.americanhumanist.org
- Council for
Secular Humanism. Website: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
- Secular Coalition
for America. Website: http://www.secular.org/
- Wikipedia.
Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
- Grand Orient
of France. Website: http://ns6745.ovh.net/~godf/foreign/uk/index_uk.html
- Grand Orient
of the United States. Website: http://www.gomasons.org
- Margaret
C, Jacob. The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts & Fictions. University
of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 18-19, 23.
- Bessel, Paul.
"U.S. Recognition of French Grand Lodges in the 1900s",
Heredom: The Transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society
-- volume 5, 1996, pages 221-244]
- Jaunaux,
Bro. Laurent. "Concise History of the French Regular Freemasonry",
Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium. Website: http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/concise-history-of-the-french-regular-freemasonry/
- Jones, Bernard
E. The Freemason's Guide and Compendium, New and Revised Edition.
Cumberland House. 1950, p. 200-201.
|
