The method of philosophical proof doesn’t guarantee soundness, that doesn’t mean that no proof is sound. After all, a proof is also no less sound than the combined shakiness in its postulates and logical steps.

I think there is something very important in this statement of the Rabbi. The Rabbi is very careful to recognize what is manifest and proved. He does not view what is proved as shaky. Much to the contrary, he makes sure the King is aware that the Bible does not contradict what is proved. Heaven forbid that the Bible should contradict what is proved! This is very similar to Rambam’s point regarding Creation. If it could be proved that the Universe is eternal we would take Creation as a Mashal.

But there are certain areas that cannot be proved, either because of the beginning study of the student. Or perhaps because of the immaturity of human knowledge, or because of the inherent limitation of our knowledge. It is here that we are guided by tradition it would seem. Yet, which tradition shall we choose? Surely there must be a way of intelligently choosing a tradition where formal proof does not, or cannot exist?

In principle, this is where the Kuzari’s argument from Sinai enters the picture. Forgetting your difficulties with the argument for the moment, clearly, for all those who do not have prophetic dreams, this is the course Kuzari advocates. An argument to justify Jewish tradition where stronger proof cannot exist.

1- We’re not talking about faith, we’re arguing about which justification system is a more reliable way of producing knowledge.

2- We’re not talking about one or the other, but rather the appropriate role for each. I’m saying that relating to G-d, knowing Him through experiencing His Creation and His Torah is the basis of emunah, atop which one uses philosophy to know more about Him. That He Exists (and perhaps the more basic things we say about Him as well, this is a blurry line which drifts off), though, is most soundly proven the way we prove postulates, not as a structure built atop postulates.

13. The Rabbi: That which thou dost express is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and thou wilt find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved.

and
63. The Rabbi: There is an excuse for the Philosophers. Being Grecians, science and religion did not come to them as inheritances. They belong to the descendants of Japheth, who inhabited the north, whilst that knowledge coming from Adam, and supported by the divine influence, is only to be found among the progeny of Shem, who represented the successors of Noah and constituted, as it were, his essence. This knowledge has always been connected with this essence, and will always remain so. The Greeks only received it when they became powerful, from Persia. The Persians had it from the Chaldaeans. It was only then that the famous [Greek] Philosophers arose, but as soon as Rome assumed political leadership they produced no philosopher worthy the name.

67. The Rabbi: Where could we find one for such a question? Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Bible to contradict that which is manifest or proved! On the other hand…

Does he not explicitly say that philosophy can not prove anything (in any strong sense of the word prove), that it merely produces arguments in favor of this idea or that?

You’re still contrasting philsophy with faith. I do not know how to clarify what I’m saying without repeating myself.

1- We’re not talking about faith, we’re arguing about which justification system is a more reliable way of producing knowledge.

2- We’re not talking about one or the other, but rather the appropriate role for each. I’m saying that relating to G-d, knowing Him through experiencing His Creation and His Torah is the basis of emunah, atop which one uses philosophy to know more about Him. That He Exists (and perhaps the more basic things we say about Him as well, this is a blurry line which drifts off), though, is most soundly proven the way we prove postulates, not as a structure built atop postulates.

The king went hunting for a religion when G-d appeared to him in a dream complimenting his intent, but saying his actions felll short. Then it became an exploration of what to convert to. After part 1 explains why knowledge must be founded on tradition, at least in Rihal’s opinion, there is part II…

I also never said religion can’t be measured in objective truth standards. It can’t be discussed, because it involves experience more than the consequent ideas that are tokenized into words or have logical structures built upon them. But that’s not denying their objectivity, but their communicability.

(The Rav, as you surely know, often offers different opinions to different audiences. Though this is best known to his students in Halacha, it is so in Hashkafot as well).