Shalom, I hope you’ll afford me the opportunity to respond one more time to Yitz.
Reading his response, I think he wins the first item on points
I think the second item (“fairnessâ€) is harder to call, but I’m willing to concede that one too
On the symmetry of the motivation for-and-against belief, I would say that believing has a leg up both because it’s correct (an assumption one couldn’t use in discussion with a non-believer, but which Yitz will accede to) and because at least on the surface it’s the more difficult path
I think his substitution of my motivation in his previous paragraph works about as well as putting cheese in a hamburger. There may be an argument to be made there, but this was just doesn’t read right
Yitz will not be the first to say that I lack emotional understanding. I don’t think this case provides good evidence, though. On the contrary, I think that people should have factored their empathy with other people’s tragedies into their beliefs long before tragedy strikes them personally. Mine is not the cold way, here.
I did not, in fact, read the book, though I think I read the “pizza†chapter in some periodical and was, in fact, unimpressed with the depth of her thinking. Still, Yitz is correct in suggesting that I was not referring to the book or to Ms. Mirvis, but solely to his comments on Hendel’s comments on it and her. I don’t see a need to announce that, since it’s implicit in what I wrote.
As a related aside: I find it interesting that the gemara spends so much time arguing that someone hasn’t proven his point. Not that his point is wrong, merely that the evidence and logic that he has marshalled fall short. If you think about it, that’s a big chunk of what goes on. I, for one, love that.
On the whole, though, I’d say that Yitz was more correct than I was, and I retire from the field.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2018 06:20PM by mlb.
