Rami wrote: "I rank the quality of religions and gods by one criteria: the extent to which they bring people to an ever deepening commitment to justice and compassion for all beings." I might add "humility" to the list, but otherwise we agree.
I, of course, speak from within a religious tradition. My particular tradition (Christianity with a Protestant and Baptist flavor), includes self-correctives to zero sum tribalism. Two examples come to mind. The parables of the good Samaritan and the sheep and goats always challenge self-interest and tribalism. I suspect the commandments perform a similar function. The Sermon on the Mount does as well. The tragedy is that Christians seldom give themselves wholly to such visions.
Obviously, my operating assumption that God reveals himself most fully through the story of the Jews and Jesus is not verifiable. I assume you use the term "verifable" in the sense of being subject to experimental (and repeatable) verification. It is a faith assumption, a postulate if you will. I've found the postulate works for me. It leads me to confront my own self-centeredness, xenophobic tribalism, and systems that encourage such things. Speaking personally, it has also led me to experience a sense of the presence of God, sometimes strongly, sometimes less so.
Once again, though, I'm struck by how our different starting points seem to lead us to similiar conclusions about what is important. Take your point about a "radical humility when it comes to theology and the idols theologians imagine and worship." I agree with you. We agree about the desired end result of good religion: justice and compassion. I suspect both of us think good religion aims at authentic community building, though I might say this is God's vision for humanity while you might argue it's inherent in Reality.
Perhaps my tradition has something to contribute at this point: radical religious freedom. Baptist Christians, with some notable recent exceptions in the United States, have always insisted on religious liberty. By this we mean government or other authorities have no rightful role to play in support of any religion. Instead, each individual is free to choose or reject religion of any kind. Religious freedom is an inherent right. It should not be confused with religious toleration, which assumes some group has authority to give or withhold permission. Put into practice, religious freedom functions as a partial antidote to zero sum thinking.
Of course, all of the above is costly in that it often sets one in opposition to perceived self-interest or cultural norms. Spiritual formation, I think, always requires that we die in some sense in order to live an authentic human life.