What do you think of Shalom Tzadik's opinions presented in Rabbi Shmuel Ariel's post?

I saw that in the past the rabbi was asked about Rabbi Shmuel Ariel's departure from Otniel following the opinions of Shalom Tzadik. I saw that you also corresponded on the site with Shalom Tzadik on these issues. Today Rabbi Shmuel Ariel published a post on Facebook explaining what Shalom Tzadik's opinions were that caused him to leave. I would love to hear which opinions you think are correct and which are not.
 
The post:
(Clarification: I am not used to using Facebook and am not on it very often, so I do not undertake to respond to every comment and response that may appear here.)
 
Since I left Otniel, I have been asked several times about the reasons for this. For years, I preferred to answer this privately rather than publicly. But now the issue has come up again in the public sphere, and it seems that now, from the distance of time and perspective, it is appropriate to present the matter to the public.
 
Brief background:
I studied and taught at Otniel for 30 years. There were things I agreed with and there were things I didn't, and over time the things I disagreed with increased, but it was still within the legitimate realm of differing opinions in the Beit Midrash.
At a certain point, the yeshiva began to hold classes by Prof. Shalom Tzadik (a graduate of the Otniel Yeshiva, a lecturer in Jewish thought at Ben-Gurion University, who suggested that the yeshiva teach classes in Jewish thought). Over time, I began to hear quotes from students from these classes that I didn't really like. I talked about it with Shalom Tzadik and the yeshiva staff, but things continued.
In Adar 5778, an article of his was published in "Avia" (an internal newsletter of Yeshiva Otniel), which shook me greatly. I urgently contacted the yeshiva staff, and at the same time I began listening to many recordings of Shalom Tzadik's lessons to truly understand what was being said. From this, I came to the conclusion that if this content continues to be heard in the yeshiva, there is no way it can remain in such a place.
What content is this? There are many problematic things, which I will not list here. I will briefly present some of his serious statements in the lessons and in the article:
 
1. There is no providence at all. God does not intervene in reality in any way, neither to save the righteous nor to punish the wicked, nor to save the people of Israel.
2. Since God does not intervene in reality, then there is no reward and punishment in the simple sense, meaning for example that if we keep a commandment it will rain, etc. When the Torah tells us such things (which of course appear in many places in the Torah) – it is lying. It says this so that the people will keep the commandments, but it is not really true.
3. Quote: "The Rambam constantly, constantly, constantly says that the Torah does not tell the truth."
4. Likewise, when the Bible tells of various historical events and says that they occurred under divine providence, this is an educational lie for the public. For example (an example he gives), when the prophets say that the destruction of the First Temple came because the people sinned by idolatry and the like – this is not really so. The destruction and exile occurred for completely natural reasons, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to expand his empire. But the prophets had to explain to the people how such a thing happened, so they say that it came because of idolatry and other sins.
(Let us note the significance of these words: most of the Bible deals with historical development and describes it from the perspective of divine providence – this statement presents most of the Bible as a lie.)
5. Prayer does nothing in reality. It only has a psychological effect.
6. Just as God does not intervene in reality, He also does not reveal Himself to humans. The prophets are simply great philosophers who understand how to act and tell the people.
7. The same is true of the Torah – Moses was a great philosopher, he understood with his wisdom what God would have us do, and so he wrote the Torah.
8. Following the previous statement – a student's question: So what is the status of Mount Sinai?
Answer: This is the situation in which Moses brought the book he wrote to the people.
Question: So what are the voices and lightnings?
Answer: Moses was a great sage, and just as today's forecasters know how to say that in three days there will be voices and lightning, so too he knew, and timed the giving of the Torah for this day.
(That is: A. The Torah is not a divine revelation, but the wisdom of Moses. B. Moses our Lord was a liar, who deceived the people and timed the giving of the Torah to a situation in which it would appear to the people as a divine revelation so that they would agree to accept the Torah he invented.)
(In a certain sense, this is worse than the heresy of biblical criticism. Biblical criticism also denies the divine origin of the Bible, but it at least believes that the one who wrote the Bible believed in these things, the people who wrote the books of the Bible believed that the miracles really happened and that if the people did not listen to the voice of God, evil would come, etc., and therefore they wrote this. Shalom Tzadik presents Moses and the other prophets as liars, who themselves did not believe in these things and lied to the multitude.)
9. Judaism does not expect a person to believe in anything. A person can not believe in anything, not even in the reality of God, and that is fine.
10. The trend of Judaism is only the observance of practical commandments, not faith. Faith is a means to the observance of the commandments, and not the other way around, for the commandments come to express and realize faith. The purpose of the commandments (even those that ostensibly are between a person and a place) is only practical, for the practical correction of society, the creation of a reformed society in which there is kindness and mutual assistance and family stability, and the like.
(The last point may not be heresy in itself. If he were to claim that God gave the Torah with the sole intention of creating a society among us that is reformed in the areas between man and man, that would be strange and harsh, but not necessarily heresy. But:
A. This contradicts the simplicity of many verses in the Torah, which present faith as the ultimate goal and the commandments as an expression of faith, such as that the Sabbath is a reminder of the act of Genesis and many commandments are a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt, etc. Again, this turns many verses in the Torah into an "educational lie," designed to convince the masses to keep the commandments in practice.
B. There are views that question the revelation and giving of the Torah, and yet emphasize the value of keeping the commandments, such as in parts of the Conservative movement and more. This is of course a heresy in the foundations of the Torah, but at least these approaches present the commandments as a matter of faith – in their opinion, it is not a divine command that appeared in revelation, but it is the way for the people of Israel to draw closer to God and express their faith in Him. While the peace of a righteous man empties the Torah and the commandments are planned from both sides – it is neither a divine revelation, nor an expression of faith and closeness to God. It is just a practical way of life to regulate the social framework and nothing more.)
 
So much for the facts, namely the presentation of data on what happened (and to the best of my knowledge is still happening) in the Otniel Study Center.
And here's a little about the meaning of things:
A. First, as is clear from the above: My departure is not a matter of my personal problem, that personally it is not appropriate for me to be in a place with such and such an unknown view. These are views that are outside of Judaism, and no God-fearing Jew should accept the existence of such messages in the Beit Midrash.
B. People ask me: Does this reflect the general view of the Otniel Yeshiva? – Absolutely not (although I have also heard, unfortunately, some of the staff members say that they identify with some of these things to one degree or another). But even if this is not the general way of the yeshiva, and even if the yeshiva heads and the rabbis say that they do not agree with these things, it is impossible for a yeshiva to allow such things within the Beit Midrash. These are not opinions that are within the scope of the Torah, but rather opinions that are outside the Torah. Just as it would be unthinkable for a yeshiva to hold classes that preach Christianity, or to allow the serving of treacherous foods in the dining room, so it would be unthinkable for a yeshiva to hold classes that preach heresy. And this is exactly what happens, very unfortunately, when these classes are held at Otniel.
C. Another claim that was made is that Shalom Tzadik's words do not reflect his personal opinion. Personally, he believes, but he believes that there is a legitimate place in Judaism for a non-believing perspective, as presented above. Well: I do not know what Shalom Tzadik's personal opinions are, and for me this is not the relevant point. What is relevant is what content the students hear in the Beit Midrash. When Shalom Tzadik repeatedly conveys these messages in his lessons, then even if this is not truly his personal opinion, the main and serious point is still - within the yeshiva, there is education for heresy, and this is something that would be unthinkable. This is similar to a butcher in a yeshiva serving carrion and prey to the students in the dining room (with the knowledge of the yeshiva heads and staff), and people will sit and discuss whether he personally keeps kosher in his home or not. Of course, this is a completely secondary question.