It's all semantics

This is a potentially controversial post.

Or, at least 'off topic' at the worst. That said, I haven't posted anything new in a while so I figure I might as well make a cross-post at least.

On 'another forum' there was a lengthy discussion as to whether a Buddhist could, or could not, be a Freemason. The tone of the thread quite bothered me.

In my view it was purely a question of semantics. If a Brother professes a belief in 'God' that is all we can ask him.

We *cannot require he believe in a specific definition of deity*! We simply cannot do that. If the candidate says he puts his trust in God, that is the end of it. We cannot ask him, which God do you believe in? We cannot ask him what church do you attend? We cannot give him a litmus test of any particular flavor of Christianity or some other world (or more likely) personal religion. More to the point, for a bunch of Freemasons to argue over who 'can or cannot' be a Freemason because we do, or do not, accept their profession of belief in deity is completely out of line. At least in my view.

This led me to post a series of 'rants' on my religious discussion forum AARM which I am going to cross post here.

Here are a series of posts I made on this general topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm chiming in here at the end of this thread and completely out of context.

I want to make just a single point.

IT IS ALL SEMANTICS!

We, as humans, are symbolic manipulation creatures. It is one thing that makes us particularly endearing.

Let's all go into a room and turn the lights off, shut our mouths, and sit for a few days and see what really happens.

Let's put a man who speaks Chinese but not a word of English in a room with a man who speaks English but not a word of Chinese.

Let's give them a very long time.

And, it will be a very long time, until they manage to communicate anything about their internal nature to the other.

GOD is a word.

It is composed of three letters 'G' 'O' 'D'.

It has no fixed meaning.

It means something radically and dramatically different to billions of people on the planet earth.

All that these people on the planet earth 'do' is play semantic games with each other anyway. The entire internet and all of human social intercourse is reduced to a series of semantic games that produce the dialectic struggle.

You cannot reasonably say Freemasonry is open to men of all religious beliefs and then force them to conform to a singular definition of 'God'!

We also don't need to discuss it.

My belief in God is personal. So is yours.

Sure, we may get the 'gist' of it. If you stand up in front of lodge and say you put your trust in 'God' chances are you are at least acknowledging that you accept some higher power greater than yourself. (Of course I consider that fairly common sense every time I look through either a microscope of a telescope, so go figure...)

Even though this may be what the brother believes, there is no still guarantee even then. And, really, there shouldn't be. We do not question a candidate about their personal religious beliefs, their personal semantics. That is between themselves and their personal relationship with the God concept. The God word.

That is why we focus entirely on the *character* of the candidate not the characters he uses to define the God word.

To have a debate, even in this internet forum, as to who's personal definition of the 'God word' is valid or invalid seems, well, it seems inappropriate.

Leave that question between the brother and his God concept. It is none of your concern or mine.

If a man who comes well recommended, is duly and truly prepared, kneels at an altar in front of a volume of sacred law and professes to put his trust in 'G' 'O' 'D' that's it. That's the end of it. Period. Nothing more.

It doesn't matter if he is a Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, whatever. All that is required is his personal acknowledgment of the God concept.

Do we, or should we, force him to conform to the dogma of the semantic definition of some other brother's interpretation of the God word?

Absolutely not. It's none of our business.

For the record, "I put my trust in God." You need know nothing more than that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, then, an atheist could just as easily say that they have belief/trust in the "god" concept "

Yep. They can, will, and do all of the time. Realize that to most people being a pantheist is an atheist. Any scientist who refers to the laws of physics as 'God' and is willing to use that term during their obligation can join.

The requirement is only that they profess to put their trust in 'God', not that you define it or conform to a particular definition of the word.

I know many scientists and engineers who have become Freemasons because they feel comfortable referring to the underlying principles, or order, of the Universe as 'God'. The second degree teaches, quite explicitly, that the best way to gain a greater understanding of 'God' is through mathematics, logic, and observing the principles of creation.

There is a reason so many scientists and rationalists have been drawn to the institution.

John

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“He who will not accept that there is a greater power than ourselves at work in the universe.”

I would take it a step further from there. I can hardly imagine a case where even the most hardened atheist wouldn't admit that the Universe, creation, is a 'greater power' than themselves. The problem often is that these 'hardened atheists' (i.e. material reductionists) view the Universe as a dead, lifeless, dispassionate collection of atoms and molecules, a giant machine that produces life, DNA, and human consciousness through the actions of a mechanistic and mindless process. They often lack any awe or respect for either the Universe or themselves. They believe the Universe is cold and dead and their consciousness is without 'meaning' and they are little more than automatons driven by a genetic desire to breed.

Meanwhile, still surrounded with the wonders of creation and their own intellectual prowess they continue to protest that they are mere zombies in a tick-tock blind watchmakers world.

I am not a robot I said to the vast expanses of space.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Stating you are a pantheist can be a very profound and deeply meaningful spiritual thing. When I say I 'put my trust in God' at my initiation I did not consider myself playing a semantic game. I was saying something deep and profound relative to my personal belief system and it is unfair for someone to demean that position.

In the end, in the semantic game, saying you are an 'atheist' really amounts to saying you do not believe in someone else’s definition of God. In reality most theists are atheists because they refuse to acknowledge the belief in deity held by others.

Let's not get lost in the semantics of the situation. Each of us must form our own personal belief and relationship with the God concept. In Freemasonry the shape of that belief is not of our concern, it is between you and your faith. All we ask is that you be of good character and conduct yourself that way in your life.



John

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Sounds like you can join if you're an atheist and willing to turn your principles on and off, prn.”

Come on IceMonkey. Are you saying I turned 'off my principles' by becoming a Freemason? Or that I turned 'off my principles' by accepting the pantheist perspective as an acceptable form for deity?

I think you seem to have missed the entire point of my message. *MY* belief in deity is quite valid to me at a personal level. I am not 'turning off my principles' to call the Universe God. In fact, that is a complete and perfect acceptance of my principles.

We have had this conversation before. I get it. You think calling the Universe God is without meaning. That it is redefining the God word to the point of 'un'-defining. I understand we have a different point of view on this topic.

But, don't say I 'abandoned my principles' by stating I put my trust in God at my initiation. I most certainly did not.

Historically *many* religions have had a holistic view of deity. Many religions, including even some flavors of Christianity. promote this point of view.

I didn't just make this up out of whole cloth or pull it out of my ass. I can read the writings of the Neo-Platonists from centuries ago and identify with them as readily as those of my New Age bubble head friends.

Just because you don't think there is anything special about the Universe, nothing about it worthy of calling God, that's ok. Just don't criticize me, or Einstein, or any other pantheist for doing so. Don't suggest we are 'turning off our principles' when we call creation God.

Thanks,

John

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiram, regarding your comments on the cosmos, I would like to reinforce a point I was trying to make before.

There are a few different popular perceptions about the world.

There are people who think the Universe is nothing particularly special. They think it's just some clump of dead, boring, cold, and lifeless matter. That it is just some time and space; some physics and math. It's some random events that produce random and meaningless life.

And, then, there are those who have a deep and unabiding *awe* for the Universe. They see, within it, a vast amount of creativity that staggers the mind and the intellect. There are those who are capable of marveling at the fact that they even *have* an intellect with which to marvel at the Universe. Those who recognize the fact that our minds are so perfectly attuned and capable of understanding and deciphering the Universe and who are so compelled to strive to understand it better. These are people who recognize that when they use their mind and intellect to discover the nature of the Universe just how key it is that their own minds are simultaneously a part of the same Universe they are contemplating.

There are those who view the Universe as brittle, cold, and raw. A pile of atoms and molecules without any sense of order, thought, or reason.

And those who look at all of life, the self-organizing principle of matter, the order, beauty, and symmetry of nature and see, within it, a beautiful system of creation that staggers the mind and stabs the heart.

Finally, there are those who, after convincing themselves the Universe is a lame and pathetic collection of molecules, that they must invent imaginary and hypothetical father figures who have magically constructed it to satisfy petty egotistical needs for self-adoration and punishment.

Personally, I find the Universe utterly awe inspiring. And, I find the fact that I am a participating and co-creating member of the Universe, that much more so.

Please, don't suggest that when I consider the 'Cosmos' equivalent to 'deity' that I am saying something which I do not consider profound. Don't suggest that I am an atheist, because I am not.

The Universe is an intelligent and self-organizing entity if, for no other reason, than the fact that I am myself an intelligent and self-organizing entity. That, to me, is something very fundamental.

Brother John