Question

Hello,
I read with great care the article “On the New Criticism of the Talmud: A General Introduction (Column 674).”
As I understood it, one of the central ideas there is that there is no need to defend “conservative dogmas.”
But it seems to me that the critics’ main goal is דווקא to attack those dogmas, and to show
through examples the irrelevance of Orthodox Judaism. If one gives up the dogmas,
then what is left to discuss? One could simply say that the critics are right. And that is what seems to emerge from the article:
if there can be an error in every place — then what is actually true? What, in essence, is left of Judaism? And why, for example,
is Conservative Judaism not the correct approach?
In my view, all of Orthodox Judaism is built on one dogma or another, constituting a rabbinic approach.
On the personal level, everyone has a set of dogmas in which he believes: there are those for whom a word from
a contemporary halakhic decisor is “Torah wisdom,” there are those who regard the Talmud as supreme wisdom, and there are those who are satisfied
with the belief that Moses our teacher received the Torah at Sinai.
If one gives up the dogmas, then in my view all that remains is faith / belief.
So perhaps the right question is: what do we believe in — and why?