Fish's Fishy Logic

To be frank, Fish and Eagleton's arguements are entirely false. Although their arguements have a verisimilatude, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that their conclusions are based on circular reasoning and non sequitors
Fish quotes Eagleton:
“What other symbolic form,” he queries, “has managed to forge such direct links between the most universal and absolute of truths and the everyday practices of countless millions of men and women?”
Well, clearly, if you believe the universal and absolute truths to be the ones which religion describes, then yes, religion will describe them.
Another example of this fallacy is the use of the analogy of ballet:
[B]elieving that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.” Running for a bus is a focused empirical act and the steps you take are instrumental to its end. The positions one assumes in ballet have no such end; they are after something else, and that something doesn’t yield to the usual forms of measurement.
Fundamentally, they the existence of a absolute truth as a given, and that this absolute truth is God, and then complain about how science does not include this truth. They then conclude that science is incomplete, and thus we must believe, it this absolute truth. Upon this realization of circularity, the rest of the argument collapses, since there is no reason any of the things they complain about are bad, without the existence of their absolute truths, which they never show to be true.
Firstly, the value of ballet does not imply religion has value, since ballet and religion are only equivalent by analogy. Furthermore, ballet only has value within a value system, which is the very thing which this analogy is being used to prove the need for.
However, I would like to point out a few other flaws in their arguments:
Firstly, they claim that science has not replaced religion. He claims that science and religion deal with different subjects. If so, why do so many people believe thing which directly contradict the predictions of science. Although in its ideal form, religion may make not testable predictions, in reality, it makes many false testable predictions.
Secondly, his claims about the failures of science to bring progress strike me as false. I'm inclined to say that humanity has changed due to changes in science rather than their natures, because if it were just us becoming better without the help of science, why didn't we become really civilized back before we invented fire. Racism and sexism existed far before science, but there is an awfully strong correlation between the development of science and increases in the utilitarianism of society. Given that science is the fundamental cause of the civilizing of society, this seems to be causation, through a chain of direct causations.
Lastly, I would like to reject his carcature of science. Science is a way of using data to make perdictions. I do not believe, or have faith in science, any more than I have faith in my bike's ability to move me around. Its a tool, which has proven to be an effective way of moving around, just as science tends to make reliable perdictions. My bike doesn't tell me absolute moral truths. My bike doesn't tell me where I should go.
Now this brings up the final issue with their arguedment. They claim that because science doesn't us what to do, we need to have religion, so we can ecide what to do. This is simply a non sequitor.
Inevenitable we will pursue goals, but this does not mean we have faith. I can bike to get a sandwich without believing that getting a sandwich is the ultimate goal of my life. The reason I am getting a sandwich is because I am hungry, and so I will go eat, because my brain is setup to make me eat when I am hungry since that behavior is selected for because if I didn't feeling motivated to go eat, I would die, and then I wouldn't reproduce. The existance of goals does not demostrate the truth of faith, but rather a phenomana known as natural selection.
The lack of an objective imperitive does not mean an objective imperitive must exist.