Question

Following these remarks by the Rabbi in column 62 about boorishness/ignorance (though maybe I didn’t understand them properly), a question came to mind that I’d be glad for the Rabbi to address.
“An educated and open-minded person knows that even what appears in the Written Torah is not certain. Maybe these are later additions? Maybe it was not given at Sinai at all? After all, there is no certainty about anything. All of these are our conclusions, and therefore they should be taken with limited confidence. No wonder it is much harder, and not even likely, to show self-sacrifice over every detail.”
Both in these remarks and in the example the Rabbi gave afterward, he refers only to a clash between Jewish law as it has been transmitted to us today and the value of life. The principle I see in these remarks is that it makes a practical difference that we are not in absolute certainty regarding Jewish law, and in a clash between it and values we will not necessarily choose Torah. In the Rabbi’s opinion, can one say that since these matters are in the category of doubt, one may be lenient even in a clash between Jewish law and values other than the value of life, such as the value of equality or the value of liberty/freedom (for example, in a case where a certain Jewish law causes great difficulty)? If so, doesn’t this amount to giving legitimacy to “light” religious approaches / various positions along the spectrum?
And if not, what is the essential difference between the value of life and other values?