Your "review" is rather a strawman. I don't reject the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge. I'm questioning the standard conceit behind objectivity, replacing the notion of pure objectivity with a pragmatic theory of knowledge.

The problem with the coherence theory of truth is that it's relativistic. I'd prefer to look for universal, existential grounds to assess the differences between worldviews, cultures, theories, and so forth.

There's only one top coherent system of knowledge? According to which cognitive standard? The choice of standard in judging, say, naturalism vs monotheism will often beg the question. Each system is consistent given its epistemic criteria. So the relativism continues all the way down.

I agree with Dennett that there are real, what Kant called "noumenal" patterns. And we can track them with different ways of thinking. Those resulting models, maps, or systems of knowledge have different purposes as well as existential strengths and weaknesses. So I'd turn largely to ethical and to aesthetic criteria to assess different worldviews.

But of course coherence is an important epistemic standard. Indeed, I think it makes for perhaps the strongest atheistic argument, since theologies tend to be incoherent. Their proper purpose is social rather than metaphysical.