Religionists = Trekkies!
Hmm, well, if my only choices were "fundamentalism" or a secularized, atheist version of religion, I think I'd go for the latter every time. But, of course, I don't exactly see those as the only two choices (though they're probably the two most noticeable and vocal). How I would put it, is that believers, and Trekkers, and secular Jews, and these Shakespeare scholars he describes - all strive for and long for something transcendent, and that transcendent thing is true. It's not a metaphor. But our only ways to talk about it (God, The One, The Good, Allah, Brahman, etc.) are metaphorical. So in that sense none of them will ever be completely, literally true, but they also don't need to be dismissed as mere subjective, personal whims or tastes.
I see myself as struggling with my coreligionists on a similar trajectory: can a believer look at other faiths (no, not Trekkers, but Buddhists and Hindus and others) and say, "That's another story, like mine, and it's equally beautiful and enlightening and brings its adherents closer to a God(s)"? I had a several month long email debate with a fundie, which I finally (and embarrassingly) ended with saying I was just sick of his abhorrent beliefs, and I couldn't understand how anyone would believe such crazy bullshit in the 21st century. Anyway, in all those scores of emails, I couldn't budge him to go anywhere near that proposition, and yet, to me, the proposition is self-evident. Indeed, the opposite of that proposition, "What I believe is true. What those people over there believe is false, and probably inspired by demonic forces out to seduce and mislead humanity to everlasting punishment," is precisely what kept me from joining Christianity for a long time - I just couldn't believe such a crazy, dismissive, smug, self-confident, narrow-minded point of view, and I never will, and I will never have much sympathy or interest in people who do hold such a view.