Disconnected in what sense, though? Modeling natural forces as agents is a fallacy, but not all that terrible of one in some cases. The motivations might be off, obviously, but still, we do it with evolution all the time, and it works for most purposes.
Furthermore, philosophy as a whole changes in response to new discovery, as does to some extent, religion as a whole. Most philosophy which believes in truth believes itself to be true, by it's nature (if it didn't, people wouldn't hold the philosophy).
I mean, like, look at, say, absurdism, solipsism, epicureanism, nihilism, empiricism, rationality (in terms of the philosophy), egoism, platonic forms...these are all (mostly) separate philosophies, and I'm not sure how much you can say that they're based on solid reasoning and science whereas religion is all hocus pocus bollox that no one of any intellectual integrity would believe. Religion is a way of explaining and viewing the world, which originated as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Which is why I'm guessing you think of it as intellectually dishonest; we now have science which does that, for much of the things religion previously did. And yet, religion is still a way to find meaning in the world, much like philosophy is a way of finding meaning (or a lack thereof) in the world.
Theology and philosophy are on the same level of scientific merit; it's difficult if not impossible to find a way to bridge the is/ought barrier, after all.