I would not want to trouble the Rabbi before a flight, but this is not a private intuition. The relationship between a person and God, which has important educational and emotional values, is harmed by the Rabbi’s approach. Plato speaks about educational esotericism, concealing sincere information for the sake of maintaining a state (he gives as an example the belief that the earth is the mother, as a motivation for war), and especially when such an understanding is itself doubtful, one should consider the conclusions that grow out of those positions.
Whoever has felt the reality of God (without getting into the question of what exactly he felt) describes it as stepping out of the rain at intervals. There is importance to the emotional relationship between a person and his Creator, not as motivation but as an actual goal. The Rabbi sometimes mentions the possibility of a thought experiment; precisely in these matters, with a God who has no active connection, it is hard to conduct a relationship. I would generally be glad to know what the Rabbi thinks about this relationship.
On the same subject, in my opinion a rabbi is not only a philosopher; he is also an educator and a politician, so sages, be careful with your words.

Next time, spare me these foolish sermons.

Forgive the manner of expression, but in any case Judaism has a subjective layer, especially according to Hasidic teachings (the doctrine of one body, etc.), and one of the problems with that layer is that it cannot be taught fully just by conveying informational content (reading books, Gershom Scholem and Berg). There is a dimension there that can be acquired only in a practical way, so I am not entirely sure what its philosophical status is for the present discussion, but as someone who sees this as a significant part of Judaism, I cannot ignore it.
P.S. I am sure the Rabbi is not spared criticism from every possible direction (if you search Google and type in Michael Abraham, the first result that comes up is “Michael Abraham heretic”), but it is Torah and I wish to learn it, and therefore I would be glad to know what the Rabbi thinks about concealing sincerity for educational purposes, as an element in creating an emotional relationship with God.

I have written more than once about holy lies. I am very opposed to it. A lie is a lie, and falsehood does not stand. Philosophers once advocated esotericism, but I am very opposed to it. And not only because falsehood does not stand, but because in those lies you are deciding for others. A person should decide his own positions מתוך awareness of all the claims, arguments, and positions. You should not decide for him what he will think, even if you are a genius and he is a fool. Beyond that, through your lies you cause him to believe very strongly, but in the wrong content — so what have you accomplished? He will observe commandments on the basis of lies. What is that worth? By the way, Haredism is largely based on holy lies (and also on stupidity and ignorance), and in my view that is destructive and warped. Therefore, in my view Haredism is not Judaism. So to turn this into an ideology? Absurd.
The fact that things are not learned only from a book or from their verbal formulation is of course true. Tomorrow a column of mine will appear on the site exactly about this subject. So what? Because of that, should a person throw away his insights and adopt yours instead? Or those of other people, no matter how great they are? By the same token, I could have written to you that you should abandon your beliefs because you arrived at them by a crooked path (brainwashing). I do not expect anyone to throw away his beliefs just because I said so or someone else said so. He must formulate his own positions according to the best of his understanding. For that to happen, everything must be open and exposed before him.
The fact that these things even need to be discussed is an insult to intelligence.