I think it's important to have this quality of being able to look at your own beliefs objectively rather than using your beliefs to screen out any threats to them, like the traditional dogmatist does. However, I think you're just using a different word for something that is still a belief.
You might like this little clip. Zizek on love, deconstruction and "cynicism" - YouTube
He picks on deconstructionist language, and yet I do see the value in such language as it can be more accurate when that's necessary. I believe
however that it's a mistake to think we don't still believe with that same strong naivety. It's only hidden deeper.
For example check out recent thread: HELL DOES EXIST!!! and thats where MICHEAL JACKSON IS!!!*mind blowing*
You'll notice that while the OP is rigidly dogmatic on the surface, almost everyone else seems just as rigidly dogmatic but their dogma is hidden behind screens of science, tolerance, or humor. If you are objective enough to see this of course. It's a tendency for our assumptions to be invisible since they do their work in the background.
A belief is a belief.
The content or style might be different, but the underlying mental construct is the same.