wider knowledge of purported miracles of "The Besht" leads to more Deism in 1800s America?

PDF -> https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/vi...ari#search="Israel ben Eliezer 31 light oven"

The Besht and Robbers

' . . . When he came near the edge, the other mountain moved toward him and the ground became level. . . . '

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

The Besht's Journey to the Holy Land

' . . . When the Besht wanted to step on the board he saw there the flaming sword that turned every way . . . '

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

The Besht reveals himself to the sect of the Great Hasidim

' . . . At midnight the guest awoke and saw a large fire burning on the oven. He ran to the oven because he thought that the wood on the oven was burning. He saw that it was a great light--then he was hurled backward and he fainted. . . '

The "Besht," or more fully "Baal Shem Tov," is the title of respect given to a number of Jewish teachers and miracle workers, in this case Israel ben Eliezer who lived and taught in southeast Poland in the 1700s and probably was the most famous one, "THE" Besht. (another source says he died around 1760).

From a previously circulating manuscript, Shivhei ha-Besht was published in the Hebrew language in Poland in 1814.

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

Admittedly, the time is a little bit late for the heyday of Deism in America. And sometimes foreign books are translated and become popular, and sometimes they do not.
 
Last edited:
If the claimed miracles of The Besht are taken with a grain of salt, might also the miracles of Jesus thus leading to more Deism in 1800s America?
 
The "Besht," or more fully "Baal Shem Tov," is the title of respect given to a number of Jewish teachers and miracle workers, in this case Israel ben Eliezer who lived and taught in southeast Poland in the 1700s and probably was the most famous one, "THE" Besht. (another source says he died around 1760).

From a previously circulating manuscript, Shivhei ha-Besht was published in the Hebrew language in Poland in 1814.

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

Admittedly, the time is a little bit late for the heyday of Deism in America. And sometimes foreign books are translated and become popular, and sometimes they do not.


Why would a Jewish mystic cause deism, the last time there was a well known Jewish mystic, he hardly produced, deism.
 
Well, we tend to more believe in miracles that happened long ago rather than a brief 50 years previously,

plus Jesus is special, and if just any ol' mystic in Poland of all places can do similar types of miracles, it would take away a lot of the specialness, now wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
Well, we tend to more believe in miracles that happened long ago rather than a brief 50 years previously,

plus Jesus is special, and if just any ol' mystic in Poland of all places can do similar types of miracles, it would take away a lot of the specialness, now wouldn't it?
Hence people disbelieve.
 
yes and no. Even today in the United States where we have the theory of evolution and modern astronomy, maybe only 15% of Americans identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, skeptics, rationalists, free-thinkers, etc.

Most people agree with the tenets of religion of God, an afterlife, reward or punishment for deeds on Earth, etc, even if they're not particularly devout.

In fact, modern Christians have sometimes questioned the claim that a significant percentage of founding fathers were Deists. And I think these modern Christians may well have a point.
 
Last edited:
yes and no. Even today in the United States where we now have the theory of evolution and modern astronomy, maybe only 15% of Americans identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, skeptics, rationalists, free-thinkers, etc.

Most people agree with the tenets of God, an afterlife, reward or punishment for deeds on Earth, etc, even if they're not particularly devout.

In fact, modern Christians have sometimes questioned the claim that a goodly percentage of founding fathers were Deists. And I think these modern Christians may have a point.
Franklin was openly Deist, Hamilton constantly questioned scripture, Washington had relatively few religious inclinations compared to the everyman of his time, and Jefferson literally tore out all mentions of miracles from his Bible.
 
I think Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible for publication and he gave it a name, didn't he?

But how many Deists out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence as well as later delegates to the Constitutional Convention? Even though, certainly, you list four important somebodies, but how many other people?

And did Deism enjoy any run of popularity among farmers, shopkeepers, cloth makers, cheese markers, nail makers, etc.
 
I think Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible for publication and he gave it a name, didn't he?

But how many Deists out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence as well as later delegates to the Constitutional Convention? Even though, certainly, you list four important somebodies, but how many other people?

And did Deism enjoy any run of popularity among farmers, shopkeepers, cloth makers, cheese markers, nail makers, etc.
It can be assumed that a large portion of the signers, perhaps over half, were. Deism was the religion of the elite. Nobles of Europe, prominent aristocrats, and rich merchants tended towards Deism as a mark of "class." The American aristocrats, which made up by far the largest portion of the signers of the Constitution, tried their best to emulate Europe in this regard. So, to answer both questions, there were probably many Deists in Philadelphia Hall, and just as many areligious, and the religion held no sway over the everyman of the time, unless the rare upper-middle class merchant got a bit snotty. Deists were sort of like the "Hollywood" of the time in contemporary political parlance, for lack of a better analogy.
 
. . . there were probably many Deists in Philadelphia Hall, and just as many areligious, . . .
I have a hard time thinking any group, other than a very self-select group, would have this much of a common thread. People often are just so independent and so much into doing their own thing.

For example, a quick definition of Deism might be a belief in Providence but not a personal God, although it wouldn't surprise me in many Deists prayed in their own way and in ways they found meaningful, or engaged in quiet, meditative thought similar to prayer.
 
And then, people in general, whether Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, Methodists, Mennonites, etc,

want to believe in the just universe hypothesis.

They want to believe there's a reason for things and that it all makes sense. For example, in the Christian movie Miracles from Heaven, a 10-year-old girl is very sick with some weird intestinal motility problem, and after church another mother suggests to her mother that maybe there is unresolved sin in the family and that's the reason ? ! ? The minister actually comes out to the family's house to apologize to the mother, and he says he has to accept people where they are and all he can do is love them. In real life, he probably would never have heard about the incident.

A related mistake is to suggest to the parents of a seriously ill child that they somehow aren't praying hard enough? ! But this happens all the time when people say in one way or another that if only they have enough faith.

My point being that we as human beings are geared up to believe in a personal God, not an impersonal one. We are pattern recognizers to a fault.

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

Another example, the Rabbi who wrote the book, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. You'd think that would be the most boring book ever and would be wholly unnecessary. But we really resist the conclusion that a lot of the bad things in life are just plain bad luck. We want something more than this.
 
Last edited:
And we may get several lines of history crossing :) . . .

Greater publicity for The Besht, plus the writings of Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Both these fellows wrote in the late 1700s and early 1800s. And to the question, How can we ever have any kind of objective ethics without God?, well, these two theories provide an answer. I think each one (both utilitarianism and Kantian ethics) in its own way is kind of a B+ theory. No, it doesn't provide everything we might want, but a lot better than nothing.

In fact, when I took college Ethics taught by the philosophy department back in the mid 1980s, the tension and debate between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics was the main focus of the course. I actually think there's a heck of a lot of overlap between the two theories, and that the main real-world conflict is more often between humanitarianism and various forms of authoritarianism (authority for its own sake), and not between two forms of humanitarianism.
 
Last edited:
@GeographyDude

It seems highly unlikely that greater knowledge of The Besht would lead to anything but more Hasidic Jews, despite Deism many people were still on some level Anti-Semitic, so I doubt it would have much effect on general philosophy.

Secondly, Kant doesn't really provide Objective ethics without God, I mean he essentially just proves you can assert things.
 
Secondly, Kant doesn't really provide Objective ethics without God, I mean he essentially just proves you can assert things.
I tend to agree! But I bet ol' Immanuel thought he had.

Maybe another approach based on the idea of emergent properties? For example, maybe the idea that once a creature is advanced enough to have a personality, it also has rights. This would clearly be the case with bears and dogs and cats and probably less advanced creatures as well.

And if rights are too slippery or we're not sure they're really there, well, that's why I really like utilitarianism as a fall-back position. Whether a person or other creature experiences suffering or happiness in the future, that matters.
 
Last edited:
Immanuel Kant’s “big” work on ethics was his Critique of Practical Reason (1788).

He said (paraphrased), Act so that I can legitimately will that my action be a universal rule in similar circumstances.

And, never treat a person purely as a means, but also as an end.
 
Last edited:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43986/frost-at-midnight

Frost at Midnight

[Samuel Taylor Coleridge about his infant daughter]

.

.

But thou, my babe! shalt wander like a breeze
By lakes and sandy shores, beneath the crags
Of ancient mountain, and beneath the clouds,
Which image in their bulk both lakes and shores
And mountain crags: so shalt thou see and hear
The lovely shapes and sounds intelligible
Of that eternal language, which thy God
Utters, who from eternity doth teach
Himself in all, and all things in himself.
Great universal Teacher! he shall mould
Thy spirit, and by giving make it ask.

.

.
Now, some Christians might say that something like this is a pale shadow to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Other people might say, hey, I tried standard, organized religion. I tried to get with the program and it didn't work all that well for me. Don't tell me I didn't try, for I did. And so now, I find it's better to put it together my own way, and according to my own time frame.
 
Last edited:
and if most people can readily accept Deists, pantheists, etc, which is seemingly the "hard" case, :)

then maybe most people can readily accept Catholics, which is the important case. :D
 
Last edited:
Top