More than that: implicitly, he agrees with some of the assumptions there, and raises only pragmatist claims instead, meaning why it is harmful. And by implication, in principle he agrees.

With God's help,
I'll just briefly note that Gadi Taub himself responds to the Rabbi's claims in a YouTube segment called "Reuven Interviews"; if I remember correctly, the Rabbi was also interviewed in that framework.

It seems that his answer begins at 49:37 in this link:

I only just saw it now. He doesn't answer that claim. And even what he does answer is the usual answer, evolution, which does not address my argument, from the laws. The claim that there is evil in the world is also beside the point, of course. Even something complex that is bad and not understood still requires a component.
Bottom line, these are evasions.

It seems to me that in one of the lectures on postmodernism the Rabbi mentioned the paradox in this approach. I wanted to raise before the Rabbi that Mrs. Mivorach, who deals with this field, answered this question in the last month in what I think was a very beautiful way. Here is the link to the answer, which starts at minute 38 and goes until minute 47. I would be very glad to hear the Rabbi's opinion about the answer she gave.

I also remember that the Rabbi argued that Rabbi Shagar's words, that many of the Rabbi's claims about postmodernism are incorrect, and I also wanted to know the Rabbi's opinion about a very nice article, in my view, in which Mrs. Mivorach addresses the difficulties and explains what the postmodernism was that Rabbi Shagar meant, and how much good it can do.

פוסטמודרניזם טוב ליהודים

I would be happy to know the Rabbi's opinion and response to these articles, if the Rabbi is interested in addressing them.

Best regards,
Yosef

It is Orya Mivorach, not Orbach.
She does not answer at all. I listened to half the conversation because the title made me curious. And indeed I was not disappointed. This is nonsense. It is a collection of modernist claims that for some reason she chooses to describe as postmodern, along with a few mistakes. Really just recycling Rabbi Shagar.
This is not the place to give a full critique. If you bring one argument of hers here, I will gladly show you why it is either mistaken or a modernist argument. If you don't know it, I recommend listening to my lecture: Is There Religious Postmodernism?

Hello Rabbi,
In the article and also in the lecture, this is what she argues. The concept of postmodernism, that there is no absolute truth, does not mean that everything is false and meaningless; rather, there is no absolute truth, but there is another kind of absolute truth, and that is each person's truth, for which he fights out of his assimilation within his culture. And that is cultural truth. If so, according to Rabbi Shagar's teaching, for the religious person pluralism will not weaken him but strengthen him, since he has to accept upon himself his own truth without trying to search for objective truth, but only because he accepts upon himself the truth of his own culture, to believe in the culture and even fight for it. In a few words, this is how she resolves the basic question and the paradox that some asked: if there is no absolute truth, then what is determined, that there is no absolute truth, perhaps that too is not true.
Respectfully,
Yosef

In my lecture mentioned above, I argued that in postmodern discourse, after endless circling around, you discover one of two things: 1. A trivial claim that requires none of all the postmodern verbiage. 2. Nonsense. There is no third possibility.
Let's look at her argument. Postmodernism claims that there is no truth, not that truth is not absolute. When she explains what non-absolute truth is, she is actually redefining the concept of truth in a subjective way; this has nothing to do with contingency. It is a confusion of concepts. In classic discourse, this is called there is no truth, even if she attaches a different term to it. Subjective truth, genetically constructed truth, or socially constructed truth is not truth. When people say there is no truth, they mean there is no truth in the classic sense, not that people do not feel that this or that is true. That is a fact nobody denies. In other words, they mean there is no truth as a claim about the world, as opposed to about ourselves. And therefore the paradox definitely exists. It is like saying that for me truth means standing on one leg, and therefore the statement that there is no truth is not paradoxical. If you use different terminology or change the meaning of the sentence, that is not a solution to the paradox but, at best, a way of sidestepping it.
The correct answer to this paradox is that the postmodernist indeed claims that there is no truth apart from the claim that there is no truth. In his view, that is the only claim that is true. Now of course you can ask: if that is a truth, why not say the same about other claims too?
And if you insist on formalization, as she tries to do in the video, then it is exactly like saying the following claim:
Reuven: All my claims are false. If so, this too is a false claim. Therefore, there is at least one claim that is true, but not this one, rather another one. And that is where the loop stops. As is well known, when there is a universal quantifier before the claim, when the claim begins with "all," no paradox is created; the sentence is simply false, that's all.
That is exactly the parallel to what she is doing here, except that this is the correct version.

The statement that truth is not absolute in other senses has nothing to do with postmodernism, and it depends on what exactly is meant. Truth that is not certain, that is obvious and has been known long before them. That there is disagreement about the truth, that too is obvious and well known, and it does not mean there is no truth, only that not everyone knows it.
So it is all just empty verbiage. Every one of her claims falls into one of the two categories I mentioned above.
As for strengthening the religious person, I have a better reinforcement. Say that you do not believe in anything, and then nobody can attack you. That is basically what she is offering the religious person.
My feeling is that she, like Rabbi Shagar, is simply confused. They are trying to say things that can be said perfectly well in modern terminology, and in order to sound deep, and to bypass the need to think and define, they use vague postmodern terminology that says nothing.

Gadi Taub actually does give a good answer in the video to the fit between thought and the world: Darwin's evolutionary explanation. Gadi is basically just adding one more assumption along the way: that a fit between thought and reality leads to higher survivability.
According to Gadi, we survived, and there really is a fit between our thought and reality, but this does not necessarily follow from a guiding hand. There is a fit between thought and reality, and that itself is the reason we survived. Had there not been a fit between thought and reality, we simply would not have survived.
Similarly, one could say about Newton: there is no reason to infer from the order of the stars that God exists; rather, had that not been the case, we would not be alive, and in any event would not be able to wonder about the order of the universe.

I answered that. It is of course not an answer. First, we also arrived at evolution itself by using the tools of thought and observation and trusting them; that is essentially the point of the exposing argument in the fourth conversation in my book The First Existent. Second, evolution is based on laws, and the question is what explains the laws. Without a Creator, there is no explanation for that at all.

There are several other arguments for why this is not an explanation. Evolution does not guarantee the full trust that we in fact have. There is evolutionary drift and the like. It is not true that correct action always helps survival. There are situations where it does not. The conclusion from it is that trust in our senses and our thinking is a guarantee for survival, not necessarily that it is correct.