Goodbye Logic, Hello Myth

I felt this first moment deserved a bit of transcription:

Here's the problem that I have throwing in my lot with Science.  Science doesn't advance the human condition in any moralistic way, and Jesus did.  My thesis is that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ we'd have peace on earth and we'd almost be an idyllic civilization.  Am I one-hundred percent sure that Jesus is God? No, but I choose to believe that because the man was so extraordinary in what he did in his 33 years...[it] still resonates to this day.  That, I think, is more powerful [ed note: of course it's more powerful! Reductionism and Simplicity almost always win out over the complex and the real--especially when presented to the masses] than your belief in, "someday we might figure it all out, but in the mean time we're not going to believe in any deity."

Whoa...did you see what just happened? Somehow, we got from finding the truth(s) of the universe to advancing people's moral compass (I mean, he did give an exact number of year in which Jesus worked his magic, so that was somewhat scientifically connected).

But if Science does not give any counsel on weather or not I should sleep with my neighbor (or their spouse), I thus cannot throw my lot in with it? Is this "logic" really what Bill and his believers are using to justify this mind-set?

Let me summarize Dawkin's response to Bill O:

If you let faith/mythology/superstition supersede the realms of empiricism and logic then you don't belong anywhere near a science classroom.