I like to describe myself as being vaguely 'militantly agnostic'[1] ("I don't know, and you don't either," as one of my favorite bumper stickers reads), and so this quote from the OP resonates with me:
But I wondered if she hadn’t swung too far in
the opposite direction, associating propositional
inquiry with religion-haters and then dismissing
it entirely.
I do think that this kind of "Lazy Pluralism" also does the disservice of excluding from polite conversation those of us who, for one reason or another, have the same kind of emotional attachment to "propositional inquiry" that many aspiring clergy have to their faith traditions, or who want to find the larger Truths just by looking at regular truths.
Our type seem to nowadays have no home in discussions of not only religion, where you would expect it, but also philosophy, where naturalism is a weirdly embattled position accepted even in weak form by only half the field.
Personally, it does feel "ideologically homeless" to find that I'm largely locked out of discussing larger questions with people simply because I have only truths and no Truth.
Our type seem to nowadays have no home in discussions of not only religion, where you would expect it, but also philosophy, where naturalism is a weirdly embattled position accepted even in weak form by only half the field.
Personally, it does feel "ideologically homeless" to find that I'm largely locked out of discussing larger questions with people simply because I have only truths and no Truth.