I understand from your words that you distinguish between the revelation at Mount Sinai and beliefs.
It’s not clear to me why; both are factual claims. And if tradition helps for one of them (Sinai), why not for the other?

Because those ideological “facts” were not seen, and maybe were not even received. There is no claim that these beliefs were transmitted at Sinai beyond the Torah itself. And the interpretation of the Torah is open to debate.

So in your view, God did not come and say that He providentially oversees, that He answers prayers, and so on (because the interpretation can be debated, and one can say it applied in the past but not today). And therefore the source of this tradition is not correct.

1. God also did not say that He would stop overseeing or stop answering prayers. Wouldn’t it have been reasonable for Him to tell us that (when prophecy still existed)?
2. Why is it that the Sages, who developed a Torah-based intuition (and therefore, in your view, there is reason to listen to them in interpreting the Torah and the Talmud, as you argue in the issue of the decline of the generations), have nothing to say in matters of thought as well? Why is that intuition not valid regarding God’s conduct? What is the distinction?
To my limited familiarity with Jewish thought and with the Talmud (which does not deal only with matters of Jewish law), I do not know of views claiming that there is no divine intervention in the world.
3. If this was transmitted on such a broad front and in a critical culture, then why do you think the critical process did not also filter out incorrect beliefs (or at least claim that they are not necessary)? Isn’t that because the beliefs too were transmitted by tradition from Sinai or from the Torah/Prophets?

*the source of this tradition is not binding

1. Did He inform us that prophecy would cease? And yet it ceased.
2. Again, the difference is proximity to the source. Proximity has an advantage in interpreting the Jewish law transmitted to Moses, but not in looking at the world and understanding it.
3. You are quoting positions I wrote a long time ago, and not all of them are still valid in my view. Criticism is important when it is done systematically and with proper tools. I do not see that among the Sages and the medieval authorities in the realm of thought.

1. I liked the answer.
2. The Torah also contains statements about the world. If proximity has an advantage in interpreting Jewish law, why does proximity not have an advantage in interpreting those statements?
3. Still, it seems likely that these critical people also had critical thinking on fundamental subjects like beliefs, no?
(And if so, mistaken beliefs would not have been passed on to later generations.)

Just to sharpen the point (though I believe you understood), the first argument is based on the advantage of the Sages’ proximity, and the second is based on tradition.

Since these subjects are purely speculative and are not handed down in a disciplinary tradition, I do not see any great advantage they have in these matters. There is a halakhic mode of thinking that develops over the years and is transmitted by tradition. In thought it is not like that (see the different schools of thought that developed throughout history; it is hard to say there is some tradition being passed down here). But even if there is an advantage, it still is not decisive, because there is no authority in matters of fact. Therefore, if I am factually convinced that there is no divine involvement in creation, the advantage of the Sages—even if it exists—is not enough to change my mind. Especially when I see the influence of ancient modes of thought and understand where these things are coming from.

1. Could you expand on what you mean by a ‘disciplinary tradition’?
2. Which ancient modes of thought influenced Jewish thought, in your view?
3. What causes you to become factually convinced that there is no divine involvement in creation?
If there are answers/articles on the subject, I’d be glad if you could point me to them (I haven’t seen anything beyond the example of someone taking acetaminophen and it helps him whether he prayed or not).

1. In Jewish law there is a discipline. Although there are different opinions and modes of thought, there is a framework for give-and-take, discussion, and even decision. You can show a person that he is mistaken and he will admit it. There are ways to conduct a discussion. That is a discipline. In thought, that is not the case. There is no real discussion between thinkers of different approaches, and there are no ways of deciding. There are different modes of thought and different conceptual systems that do not speak to one another.
2. The Talmud is full of things that stemmed from the modes of thought of its time: from the shape of the earth and cosmology, through mathematical and scientific errors, and of course attitudes toward different kinds of people. Science in their day also was not developed, and like people generally at that time, they tended to see a transcendent hand in everything (gods or God).
3. Science and the scientific way of thinking. I’ve already written here several times about this, and I have also argued that in my opinion most people think this way, except that the heart does not reveal to the mouth. The acetaminophen example is an excellent one. In general and briefly, I would put it like this: science teaches us that every event has a physical cause, and the relation between cause and effect is described by the laws of nature. Any divine involvement is a deviation from the laws of nature (by definition, though many are mistaken and think there is involvement within nature—there is no such thing). No one ever even considers a deviation from nature. No scientific study is ever rejected because it failed to rule out divine influence (for example, no one checks whether the sample group and the control group are identical in their fear of Heaven). This requires much more elaboration.

In my trilogy I will expand on all these topics.

May I ask when it will be published?

Hopefully in about half a year.

1. He did inform us, in the book of the Torah at the end of Deuteronomy, about a dark period of hiddenness of the Divine face, and also in prophecies such as:

“For many days you shall remain mine; you shall not play the harlot, and you shall not belong to any man; so too will I be toward you. For the children of Israel shall remain many days without king and without prince, without sacrifice and without pillar, without ephod and teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the end of days.”

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord God, when I will send a famine in the land—not a famine for bread, nor a thirst for water, but for hearing the words of the Lord.”

And other such verses.

3. Human intervention too (stemming from judgment and free choice) may be considered a deviation from the laws of nature. The laws of nature describe the world as it is without intervention, and we assume that God is rational and tends not to violate the natural order He created. But in my opinion this does not necessarily mean that He never intervenes.

This is not a question of theological plausibility but a factual question. I am not trying to prove that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not intervene, but claiming that observing reality points in that direction. As for free choice, in my opinion reality indicates that it exists.

This is indeed a basic question within your position, but I couldn’t easily find an answer to it..

Why does your position, which claims there is no intervention, not apply also in cases where it is known that there was intervention (miracles, the revelation at Mount Sinai, etc.)? After all, there too there were laws of nature..
I know that you argue that intervention can indeed happen, and perhaps these are the cases you are talking about, but then how do you know when to say there was intervention and when not?

Are you saying that the default is no intervention (and if so—why? because presumably that is what God would want? because that is how we accumulate science and it is our intuition), and only when He tells us (in the Torah / through prophets) will we say that there was?

There are several questions here, but I preferred to write them all at once instead of doing ping-pong, and hope that you’ll answer me with a response that covers all of them.

You answered everything yourself. The default is that there is no intervention, but it is possible in principle. Therefore, if there are good indications of intervention, I will accept that there was such intervention. From this it follows that when the Torah or a prophet says that this is divine involvement, I have no reason to reject it. In any other case, I am not inclined to accept that there is involvement.
Beyond that, from a bird’s-eye view, it seems that the involvement that once existed has greatly diminished, and perhaps even ceased entirely. My assessment is that this is a consistent change: just as open miracles and prophecy disappeared, so too with hidden miracles.