Two Approaches to Orthopraxy

I've been mulling over the following two approaches for a while now.

Approach 1: Beliefless

In this approach I clear my mind of all beliefs. Beliefs per se do not exist. After all, what is a belief anyway? Mimah Nafshach, if the available evidence supports the belief, then it is not a belief at all, but rather it is a piece of knowledge. And if the available evidence does not support the belief, then of what value is the belief? In such a case, the belief would seem to be wishful thinking, or maybe brainwashing.

So for example, I was a guest at a Shabbat meal two weeks ago, and someone at the table asked me directly (and loudly) - 'Do you believe God wrote the Torah?'. But I didn't answer directly yes or no, rather I reframed the question and said 'The available evidence does't make that appear likely'. In other words, those are the facts of the matter.

When believers and skeptics are arguing over TMS, what exactly are they arguing about? I see two possibilities:

Option 1
Both sides agree on what the evidenec shows. However the Believers say 'Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, I still believe', while the Skeptics say 'We don't believe, since our beliefs are always based on evidence (i.e. we don't hold beliefs, only knowledge), and the evidence isn't there'.

Option 2
The arguments is exactly on the evidence. The Believers hold the evidence shows TMS, while the Skeptics hold it doesn't.

Now, most people (on either side) I think would say that Option 2 is what's happening, in most cases. True, you'll sometimes meet someone who will say 'I believe no matter what the evidence', (and that might be emotionally true for a lot more people though they won't admit it), but most of the time it seems to me that most people attempt to (appear to) be rational.

So, if Option 2 is really what's going on here, then the argument is really about the available evidence, and what it shows. Again, though, where is belief playing a part here? It seems both sides are very rational and evidence based (or at least are pretending to be).

Now, you might truy and get past this by saying beliefs are involved because one side 'believes the evidence proves TMS' while the other side 'believes that the evidence disproves (or doesn't prove) TMS'. But that's just playing with the word 'believe'. In reality, each side (according to Option 2) is saying the evidence points to X. It's a purely rational discussion with no appeal to belief.

So according to this analysis, beliefs don't have anythign to do with it. It's all about evidence, and if someone asks me 'do I believe', I will instead redirect the conversation to evidence.

Approach 2: Metaphor
Judaism is very comfortable with metaphor. Especially according to the Modern Orthodox with their 'Breishis Metaphors', but certainly even according to the Chareidim, the concept of metpahor is not alien to Orthodoxy, at least not since the Rambam. The Torah might say 'God's arm', but this is just a metaphor for the masses. Likewise according to Kabalah, the entire text of the Torah is a metaphor for deeper esoteric meanings.

So given this metaphorical approach, when people ask 'Do you believe in TMS', an Orthopraxer can of course answer 'Yes', since metaphorically what TMS really means is that 'Torah' (i.e. the entire corpus of Jewish Literature) is 'Min Hashamayim', i.e. Divinely Inspired i.e. Inspired by the (idea of) the Divine. As one wag once wrote: 'It's not that the Torah is Min Hashamyim but it's written in the 'loshon Bnai Odom'. Rather, the Torah is Min Bnai Odom but it's written in the loshon Shamayim'.

And actually I know a Jewish Academic who does exactly this - he tells people that he affirms the ikkarim, but really he's totally Orthoprax and means his affirmation in a very metaphorical way. Hey, if the Torah can do it, then why can't he?!