Secular reason is missing something, and one noted philosopher now feels that something is religion.
I'm going to try a response to Fish's critique:
If reason is inspiration to greatness (in either the benevolent or imperial form of humanitarianism) only by pity for the poor unfortunate souls of the world who aren't as enlightened as we reasonable people are, then it hasn't quite got to the point of replacing the love (in the agape sense) that religion (Christian religion, anyway) has been aspiring to.
Certainly the church hasn't been successful at hitting the high-mark on a regular basis, but one must ask wether the point of a goal is to make it easily achievable, or to inspire one to greater things than one thought possible. (If our only measure of greatness comes from self-directed reason, is it ever possible to surpass our own expectations?)
(Thanks to Michael for the link via buzz)
(If someone can find a graphic that would adequately represent the "fish on religion" pun, I will grant that person one internet.)