Onto-Religion

I learned a new term, recently, from Mis-nagid. It's called Onto-religion. I wanted to learn more about this term, so I googled it. I found this article about Religion and Respect from Simon Blackburn. The article is about his ethical dilemma he had after being invited to a Jewish colleague for a Friday night meal. It's an interesting dilemma for an atheist, but I don't want to get into his dilemma now, I just want to quote parts from it where he describes onto-religion and its opposite, which he calls expressive interpretation/religion:

Onto-theology makes existence claims. It takes religious language in the same spirit in which people calling themselves scientific realists take science. It makes claims about what exists, and these claims are more or less reasonable and convincing, and when they are true they point to explanation of the way things are in one respect or another. Onto-theology believes that there is, literally, a three-decker universe, somehow governed by a unified intelligence akin to a person who has various plans and preferences, and rewards and punishments at his disposal. The objects of religious belief-god or the gods-make things happen. They are part of the causal order. Religious beliefs are among the kinds of thing they make happen. Onto-theologians see no real difference between the way a chair explains my perception of a chair and subsequent belief that there is a chair there in front of me, and the way in which God explains the production of fire in a bush and the appearance of a couple of stones with commandments written on them.

Most people, I think, would call this Orthodox religion or fundamentalist. He goes on to explain its counterpart, expressive religion:

In more sophisticated circles, onto-theology is old hat. Instead we should see religion in the light of poetry, symbol, myth, practice, emotion and attitude, or in general a stance towards the ordinary world, the everyday world around us. Religion is not to be taken to describe other worlds, nor even past and future events in this world, but only to orientate us towards this world. Religious language is not representational, giving an account of disconnected parts of the cosmos, regions of space-time, or even of something like space and something like time, but in which all kinds of different things are going on. It is symbolic or expressive, orientating us towards each other, or towards our place in this world.

Being an atheist, Blackburn clearly dislikes onto-religion. But he has mixed feelings about the expressive kind. On the one hand he thinks it's not so bad since it isn't based on falsehood. On the other hand, he thinks it muddies the water a little and blurs the line between what he thinks is right (atheism) and what is wrong (theism).

I think there are more than just these two ways of looking at religion. These are the two extremes, but there are many points in between the extremes which people may actually hold of.

Personally, I am not looking for any symbolic system that merely expresses my subjective feelings. I am certainly not looking for what he calls onto-religion. That ship has long sailed by. What I am looking for is real wisdom regarding human existence and not mere expression. I really want objective truth and ethics that are based on these truths. Is this possible? I believe to some extent it is, but it is more of a subtle truth and it is hard to notice even when it is right in front of your face.