The late Richard Rorty famously argued that faith-based positions grounded in comprehensive worldviews or unassailable texts served as 'conversation-stoppers' and should be excluded from the public sphere. This article argues that Rorty's position flies in the face of his own postmodern epistemology as well as his insistence on the humility and virtues that should attend the collective pursuit of the social good. It suggests that there are two Rortys at work and that his epistemological ambivalence undermines the force of his argument. The late Richard Rorty famously argued that faith-based positions grounded in comprehensive worldviews or unassailable texts served as 'conversation-stoppers' and should be excluded from the public sphere. This article argues that Rorty's position flies in the face of his own postmodern epistemology as well as his insistence on the humility and virtues that should attend the collective pursuit of the social good. It suggests that there are two Rortys at work and that his epistemological ambivalence undermines the force of his argument.