You're presupposing a blinkered, hyperrational account of philosophy. I incorporate postmodernism, existentialism, and even transhumanism and aesthetic sensibilities into my conception of the search for knowledge.

So I wouldn't exactly be surprised to discover that the inventory is empty. All along, I would have understood that philosophy is a way of humanizing the alien wilderness, just as religion personifies the unknown. The difference is largely in the aesthetic merits of our respective myths and faiths. Theistic religions are childlike and stale, whereas secular modernity (Faustian or Promethean technoscience, and the humanistic ideal of self-made godhood) calls for a nobler, fresher and more creative and intrepid mythos.

I agree that secular humanism is "quixotic" in that it makes only for tragic heroes, at best (short of the long-term realization of some full-fledged transhuman, utopian galactic empire). The existential ideal of authenticity or personal responsibility is tragic because it's outmatched by life's absurdity. But we can do our best, and stale, degrading mythoi that foster ignorance and hypocrisy, such as Americanized Christianity are no longer good enough.

I must say, though, that I enjoyed your article "God is for Losers." Your plain-spokenness is effective, although I suspect that your sarcasm hints at a postmodern sensibility that's at odds with Christian dogmatism.