Question

 
https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1694508
I know that your philosophical-religious outlook is built on a very “Lithuanian” foundation: distance from mysticism, from direct providence, from any view of divine language as speaking through reality. But I ask myself—and you—whether such a line of thought necessarily indicates high intelligence.
After all, there was already another person in the world, “Lithuanian” in character, who insisted on following that line all the way to the end—Hiel of Bethel. He rebuilt Jericho despite Joshua’s curse, and his first son died. Then the second. The third. What did he think when his fourth son died? Did he comfort himself with a philosophical separation between faith and his experience as a father? Was he too a “rationalist” faithful to the point of moral blindness?
I wonder—honestly—whether you too, if you were in his place, or in the place of a bereaved father who suddenly finds that some prophecy from “non-rational” sources has come true one after another, would really continue to hold this position.
In the end, there is a difference between typing articles from an armchair and paying such prices in body and soul.
My question is not only theological, but human: do you have some threshold point—existential, not intellectual—that would break the conceptual framework, or does the method always defeat intuition (emotional, and perhaps intellectually disguised as supposedly “zero chance”)? A coincidence? Maybe. But when it happens exactly according to the “prophecy,” it is hard to keep calling it coincidence without closing at least one eye.