Every Frum Substacker and blogger seems to touch upon this perennially intersting subject. Most recently
published a variety of perspectives, including those of and , and touched upon it in his most recent piece too. On X/Twitter as well, a recent post critiquing Rav Avigdor Miller’s weltanschauung got my brain gears clicking so I’m throwing my two cents in the ring - I published the below on X and reposting here.
Rav Miller serves as a lightning rod for the discord between Charedi/Mystical Judaism and Modern Orthodox/Rationalist Judaism. These flashpoints are increasing, and I've observed this in various episodes of my IRL too. I suspect this is due to the increasing popularity of Rav Miller's works and the ubiquity of his pamphlets in Shuls across the world - as documented in this Mishpacha article. Since the Rav is very aggressive in his critique of modern shibboleths—not least feminism, diversity, and neo-Darwinian biological evolution—it's understandable we see responses like so.
Indeed, this divide is a perennial issue in the frum blogosphere, and is particularly relevant now with the past Parsha featuring Balaam - either a genuine magician or a cunning deceiver. I stake my flag firmly on the side of the Charedim, and here is why. Note that my arguments are presented from what I consider to be weakest to strongest. Additionally, I will refer to the excellent "The Intellect and the Exodus" by Rabbi Jeremy Kagan, which I highly recommend if you are interested in these topics.
1.
My understanding of Rambamist rationalists' interpretation of Yiddishkeit is that they recognize both sides as legitimate - Rambam as the iconoclast for the Rationalists and Ramban as that for the Mystics - but due to the weight of evidence demonstrated by modern science, they are forced to essentially pasken like the Rambam, both in theoretical hashkafa as well as practically - since emuna and bitachon are bona fide mitzvos, and Rambam's approach is specific (including the requirement to master technical sciences to induce true ahavas Hashem).
I personally disagree, mainly because I find modern science to be far less dependable than it pretends to be. I don't think the consensus conclusions of modern science deserve to be the starting point of theological inquiry, in the same way that Rambam believed Aristotelian conclusions DID deserve to be the starting point. Specifically, Rabbi Kagan documents the distinctions between Greek philosophy and modern science, which he categorizes as Materialist/Roman (in the sense of two separate Galiyos/exiles). The Modern Orthodox claim that were Rambam to be here today he would accept the claims/evidence/methodology of Western science, in the same way he did of Greek Philosophy, is not axiomatic, and quite possibly untrue.
To summarize, there are two levels of disagreement here. The first is the claims themselves: I think Western Science is inherently dishonest, and its claims, in many fields, highly spurious, but it lives under a mantle of prestige that seduces some when it shouldn't. But second, even if all its claims and evidence were asserted in good faith, the methodologies and inherent epistemological assumptions that underlie the philosophy of modern science are not necessarily empirically true, in the same way that the rational/logical arguments asserted by the Aristotelians are. Indeed, Rabbi Meiselman in "Torah, Chazal and Science" makes a similar claim (to the first part, not the second). However, I recognize that this claim is potentially subjective (of course it is de facto subjective, what I mean is from a Cartesian perspective it may be impossible to negate the subjectivity) and so it factors less into my thinking.
2.
In order to approach emuna and Maaseh Bereishis from a Rambamist perspective, one must first "fill their stomachs with meat and bread" (see Hil. Yesodei HaTorah 4:13) - this refers to learning, in a nutshell, Shas and poskim first. Additionally, in many places in Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam describes the character refinement and level of primacy of intellect that must be attained before even beginning to go down his path. Kagan, despite his Master's in Philosophy from Yale (yay, an appeal to authority!), rejects a purely Rambamist outlook for this reason.
Most proponents on the Modern Orthodox side do not seem to follow these prerequisites, yet still proceed down the path that Rambam lays - a path he specifically warns is strewn with obstacles for those not prepared. I've found a lack of people in the Rationalist camp who have mastered the revealed Torah before entering the Pardes, which to me indicates that some factor outside of true L'shem Shomayim is at work. Furthermore, the clear casual familiarity with regular materialist life (go Yankees! What's your favorite show?) does not comport with a centering of intellect as per Rambam.
3.
The Rationalist worldview posits that both Rambam and Ramban are distinct and legitimate, and that we can pasken like the Rambam (a common complaint against Chareidim is that they consider the Modern Orthodox view illegitimate, which is unfair, since it relies on the Rambam, an authority who requires no approval or approbation).
To me this leads to both an irreparable schism AND a paradox. Let’s unpack this - whilst there are many ‘readings’ of the Rambam, the Modern Orthodox position seems to be something along the lines of this: The Rambam was a rationalist, magic and the occult were purely illusions, believing in magic and the occult today is for the simpleminded and superstitious.
A consequence of this is what to do with the Ramban, Zohar, Kabollah, Chassidus, who do believe these things? Whilst there are a multiplicity of views on this, my view is that the dominant conclusion, in a nutshell, is that the Zohar was a forgery and that Chareidim/Chassidim are Noble Savages (h/t @FieldSpeakerZDQ). (This explains the often class based, high browed criticisms levied by the MO upon the Chareidim - as ultimately they view them in somewhat the same way we all view pagan uncivilized Amazonian tribes).
This schism is quite devastating, creating a large theological gulf between Chareidm and MO, with the obvious consequence that with the passage of time, they will splinter into two mutually exclusive sects, in much the same way Conservative Judaism is considered non Orthodox and not recognised as authentic by Orthodox Jews of most stripes.
Indeed, it also leads to cognitive dissonance and paradox. MO recognises the primacy of the Shulchan Aruch, which itself recognises the Zohar and Kabbalah as legitimate, and sometimes take precedence in Halacha. Whilst there are some that go all the way and essentially pasken like Rambam in all cases, this isn’t the dominant view.
Conversely, the Rambanist Mystical view on this machlokes leads to a more concordant synthesis. From this perspective, the Zohar and Kabbolah in general are holy Torah, and in fact we pasken in accordance with them. The Ramabam was a holy Sage who wrote a Halachic masterpiece, but he simply wasn’t zocheh to learn the nistar parts of Torah, and had no choice but to rely on his own intelligence when entering the Pardes. But as a human and subject to foibles, he wasn’t successful at arriving at the truth.
(See the מגיד מישרים כ"ב, פרשת ויקהל מהדורא בתרא. The Maggid told the Beis Yosef that Rambam is at the level of a tzaddik and not מגולגל in a worm. Because although there was a גזרה on Rambam to be מגולגל in a worm ("בגין קצת מילין דמליל דלא אתחזו") his Torah and מעשים טובים shielded him, and he was spared this. Instead, he was מגולגל (I guess this means a regular גלגול in a Yid as opposed to in a worm), and he passed away, and he sits between the tzaddikim.)
From this perspective, we can discard the opinions that we don’t pasken like, whilst still retaining the Rambam a a Poisek in nigleh. We are not dismissing the Rambam (the Maggid’s somewhat harsh words not withstanding), we are asserting that he simply did not merit to receive certain wisdom. In contrast, the MO view is that the Ramban and Arizal were fooled by fraudulent wisdom - not only a less charitable view, but actually one that calls into question the entire premise of the veracity of our Mesorah.
This Chareidi interpretation of the Rambam vs Ramban divide removes the paradoxical dissonance and lessens the schism, but ultimately it still remains in a practical sense. R’ Hillel, in Sanhedrin 98b, asserts that Moshiach will not come. Holding this view today would be simple heresy, but Rav Avigdor Miller explains that R’ Hillel had the right to hold the view (assuming we understand it as it is). After the Halachic process paskened against him, it became heretical.
The same seems to apply to Rambam, in the Chareidi perspective (Especially in light of the Gra’s critique of Rambam’s ‘accursed’ reliance on Greek philosophy). He had the right to the view at the time, but the Halachic process and mesorah have paskened against him - perhaps to the point where continuing to pasken like him today, and accordingly that the Kabbolah is superstition, would be heretical.
Additionally, there exist Chareidi apologetic perspectives that account for Rambam too, with various arguments such that the Moreh etc were not to be taken literally, that he was hiding his knowledge of Kabolah lest it reach those unprepared. Chabad make the claim that “there are many topics in Guide for the Perplexed which have a basis in Zohar and Kabbalah.” (Likkutei Sichos vol. 3 761). You can see more of those discussed here.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, I find that the Chareidi perspective is more holistic, persuasive and concordant with the overall mesorah. I also (subjectively!!!) feel no intellectual pressure from secular sciences to color my theology. But my views notwithstanding, if you leave with one thing, it is my recommendation to read The Intellect and the Exodus, it’s excellent.