A few notes

In honor of Rabbi Michael Avraham Shlita.
I am a Haredi yeshiva student. I read your articles and usually enjoy them very much. I just haven’t touched on anything that concerns the principles of Jewish thought yet, because in my opinion your ideas on these subjects are outside the scope of the principles of faith.

( Of course you ask: If it’s true, it’s true! The answer is that in my opinion, in the MHC(T), your method of thinking misses certain points in a way that is expressed in the above areas. You ask: How is that possible? For me, it’s all logic! I will answer: Of course, and for me too. But when you think too analytically [not ‘analytical’ but just analytical], sometimes you come to something, and you immediately make a decision on it, while on closer inspection you can find that the truth is different, and can be defined analytically and completely logically, but not in a way that is immediately obvious.
For example, you write that you do not understand the benefit of studying the Bible. I will not go into the subject, but I will only say that in my opinion, studying the Bible has a very significant effect on the learner. It has been said that the explanation for this is psychological. (In short: it is not for nothing that the poetry of the Bible is revered to this day by all poets. And not because its authors were great poets even in relation to their contemporaries. It is because of the broad spirit of ancient man, and so on.). But it is clear that anyone who has not thought about this explanation will assume that the only reasons that will be included are: knowledge of the events or messages in the Bible, knowledge of the commandments in the Torah, learning ‘morality’ from the prophets in a way that is no different from studying in moral books, the commandment to study Torah Talmud, and more (perhaps you brought up other considerations there, IZ NM). That is why you came and said: History can and is better learned in other ways, and in general it is not that important. The ideas of Judaism – can and is better learned in other ways. Halacha – as above. Morality is learned in books that specialize in it / books that are more modern, T.T. are more elaborately implemented (As is known from Milkut Shimoni, Psalms 1: And concerning them He says, “Let the words of my mouth be pleasing to you,” that they may do and enact them for generations, and let them not be read in them as they read in the books of Mirs, but rather they shall be read in them and be judged by them and receive a reward for them as plagues and tents, as it is said, “Let the words of my mouth be pleasing to you.”) (Perhaps you have brought other arguments, but I am only an example of the above.) So the conclusion is clear – there is clearly no point.
But the real explanation, in my opinion, is not noticeable if one approaches the subject with a ‘computability’ approach. Although the fact that something can be computed is a measure of its truth, and indeed, after thinking and finding the above explanation, they will be able to confirm it even with complete logic [Dry logic has no problem with psychology. If a certain thing leads to a desired result, we do it, and what if the process between action and result goes through emotions? But in the first place, this thinking does not bring up the idea.]
Therefore, I agree with those who complain against you: “It is impossible to approach everything with complete logic,” and although they are certainly greatly mistaken, because the truth must be true, they are right because in practice this method fails in many areas. )
I’ll explain myself: I think I read in your book (and even if I didn’t, it’s probably your opinion) that you don’t understand how it’s possible to prohibit dealing with issues that could lead to heresy. After all, MNM: If I’m convinced, then this is the truth for me. And if not – what’s the problem?
But even when a person reads an article that challenges one of his opinions, and is not rationally convinced, he will no longer experience his opinion as clear as he did before. Despite the intellectual answers he gives himself, he no longer fully feels this truth. There is also the part of the emotional attitude; someone told me that he had read a satirical story in the past, in which the protagonist was the Chazo. The Chazo is presented in a very ridiculous light. Even though he knew that the story never happened, and even though the writer did not intend to use it to illustrate anything related to the Chazo in a caricatured way, but rather used it arbitrarily – he could no longer think of him without remembering the story. The reverence and admiration he had for the Chazo were damaged for several years. In this case, the damage is not that serious, but what would happen if a young man my age were to read, for example (in a way), an article in the style of ‘The Bible at Eye Level’ or Biblical criticism? Even though it’s clear to me that these things are not true, it could be very harmful.
Therefore, I don’t read any article that I fear will contain things that the problematic part of your approach caused you to say. Maybe in the future.

A note on the validity of statistical proof
In the third column in a series of columns about belief in God that you wrote on Ynet, you bring up Elia Leibowitz’s argument that one should not assume that God exists because of some statistical pressure, since we are not familiar with the concept. Your response is that there is legitimacy to an unfamiliar answer when dealing with science, and that without God we would not have physics, etc.
But there is a mistake here. The mere fact that there is order does not increase the likelihood of the possibility of order, because order among details is only one possibility of their state. Thus, when the wind drops a glass, the chances that the glass fragments will form the shape of a Star of David are exactly equal to any particular chaotic arrangement. Nevertheless, when we see glass fragments in the shape of a Star of David, we are sure that it is man-made, because even before we see the shape, we are faced with two possibilities: a. A random fall arranged the fragments; b. A person arranged them. (Let us assume that the two chains of possibilities have more or less the same probability, so that the decision can be made by the next stage.) When we see the order, we understand that if we assume that the fragments were scattered naturally, the chance that they would be arranged in this way is very low, and in contrast, according to the theory of order, there is nothing so rare here – we understand that a person arranged them, because this possibility has a much higher probability.
And if order was created, in a very unlikely way, due to external reasons, where there was a factor in the area capable of arranging it – it is more likely that the order happened by chance.
For the sake of argument, the ordered world will come to testify in the discussion about the existence of God only in the second discussion. In the first discussion, they will discuss the principled probability that God exists. And that – everyone will say according to their intuition… right?