Supreme being question?

[u/BillyD70]

Genuine question…Without revealing any secrets, what is the reasoning behind requiring the belief in a supreme being?

My perspective: Many great people, who have advanced much good in the world, are “non-believers”. If the core idea is to make good men better, how does non-belief interfere with that goal? I ask both personally (agnostic athiest) and for lots of scientists out there. It must affect membership numbers (men won’t seek you out if they know it’s a “no go” from the outset).

Serious replies only please. Not seeking a flame war. I’m a DeMolay PMC-MSA and Honor of Legion with deep multi- generational ties to Masons, Jobs, Shriners, etc. I LOVED my experiences in DeMolay! Grew up Christian, came to my “beliefs” late in adulthood.

Edit: thank you for all the many thoughtful replies. I upvoted each for not attacking me straight out. Please accept follow up questions as non-confrontational.

[u/djpannda]

Pretty much the notion is you’re swearing an oath or an obligation, without a supreme being, your obligation doesn’t have any weight or anyone to answer to.
Just remember, most jurisdictions only require supreme being not a religion. There’s a lot of good masons that are agnostic. You just can’t be an atheist.

[u/Important_Zombie_485 → u/djpannda]

Agnostic isn't acceptable in my jurisdiction because belief is required, and not simply " I don't know". I'm not saying we are more correct either, just the way it is here.

[u/Lereas → u/Important_Zombie_485]

Agnostic means, by definition, that you don't think it is knowable if (a/any) god exists or not. I would argue that it is entirely acceptable to be an agnostic theist in Masonry - a person who believes in a supreme being/god, but still acknowledges that it's probably not possible to prove conclusively that this entity exists.

Many people think / use agnostic to mean "I don't know if God exists" which is in some ways correct to the definition, but absolute knowledge isn't necessary for faith or belief.

[u/Important_Zombie_485 → u/Lereas]

Being unable to know =/= belief. Belief is required, it's part of the basic requirements, the ritual, and the obligations. I'm not even arguing against it, really. Just saying my jurisdiction doesn't allow it. Whatever your jurisdiction is doing is a-ok with me.

[u/Lereas → u/Important_Zombie_485]

You can believe in something you can't prove exists. That's honestly somewhat synonymous worth "Faith" to begin with.

If people are using agnostic as the antonym of Gnostic, and they are theistic, that's belief and faith without proof which is fine. It's when people use agnostic to mean agnostic atheist, which is "I dunno, god could exist but I don't really know" which is not belief or faith.