What exactly has science done for 'you'? (...) Perhaps because it is not a value, but a tool.
It depends on your perspective. Science isn't a "thing", but neither are values.
The central argument is:
Is it better to use observation and experimentation to generate knowledge and standards... or is it better to have faith and not require validation to generate knowledge and standards. Faith that claims knowledge cannot afford to have it tested... that's its nature. To do so elevates the knowledge to attack, even if it is at first validated. It ceases to stand on faith and now depends on it's own support.
The difference is that science generates knowledge extremely well. If you want to cure someone, you don't pray to God - it just doesn't work. Faith would automatically assume it does; but it can be tested and it doesn't. On the other hand, shared values do have to come from something more philosophical, which science doesn't do.
So, to answer your question... Science generated the knowledge that kept me alive after I was born. It worked out how we can talk at great lengths like we are now. Every time I cook, eat, drive... all of these things were generated with knowledge. It is our strength in the animal kingdom - literally, that which allows us our power, defines our ability to shape our world.
When measured against each other on the same level, faith fails at generating knowledge. When measured at the philosophical level, science can hold its own as a subset of epistemology. It can be claimed that it can't compete with faith because it can't explain what faith does - however, the philosophical argument is that anyone can generate an explanation that explains what cannot be known, thus making no particular faith relevant.
Regardless, science is a tool, yes, if you consider processes capable of being called tools. So can religion, a tool for social definition - excluding outsiders and unifying insiders.
Perhaps Dawkins advocates the doing away with all value systems? Are you saying that value and reason are not compatible?
Values are shared beliefs, nothing else. A belief in approaching things from the point of view of reason is not an impossibility, although it defies the faith-generated norm that we are all used to. It would be akin to the belief in free speech - disagreement on everything that is said, but not the disagreement that it should be allowed to be said.
So long as the value reflects reason, then the value is reason. But if it can be reasoned that it is wrong, then the value is no longer compatible with reason.
I believe Dawkins says that it is wrong to claim something that is false and basing actions upon beliefs that are unfounded is inherently immoral. This is where it heads into philosophy, however.
If religion has run its course, then it should naturally dissolve.
It would appear this is the case - do you not seem him as part of the dissolution? However, the resolution of any norm can cause revolution. There is no protection or guidance that states history moves only forward - that we cannot regress back to the dark ages and back to cavemen.
Either interpretation would be valid.
'We' know better now. That indicates the assumption that religion is a vehicle for information, just as reason is.
Yes, the error is that religion assumes
knowledge where none exists. It exists as a replacement for reason.
Religion serves many complex purposes including projection of the individual and social psyche.
Redefine religion so that the sentence remains true. "Community", "Nationality", "Family"... it can always be replaced. There is nothing unique about religion that is not covered by alternatives. Religion is a subset of human needs, which means that it is theoretically possible that religion is a subset itself of other social manifestations... which even if it is not, suggests that there are alternatives to what is offered.
I always find it funny that in Japan, they have the concept of community that involves everyone going out and cleaning up the neighborhood. That's there version of "community" - nothing to do with religion and everything to do with community and practical issues. The American equivalent is to head to church to listen to what many consider to be the literal truth, written over a thousand years ago.
Religion and science may be at odds, but it is a false dichotomy. One of the most basic concepts of human interaction: never take something away from someone unless you have something equivalent or greater to give them. If you yank a nail out of a child's hand to keep them from being hurt, they will cry and feel hurt. If you instead hand them a soft toy, they will readily give up the nail. I find a great deal in Dawkins position that indicates a lack of understanding of the social and psychological dynamics of religion and the individual. These are important elements that should factor in to this equation.
I don't see how this conflicts with Dawkins... are you referring to a particular statement of his?
However, you just reasoned out what the correct act was. I could also say that bribing the child may solve the immediate problem but could in fact be inflicting more long term problems by bribing the child rather than teaching them. I could compare it to training a dog. I could run/find experiments to show the long term effects of repeated acts for bribery and what not.
Religion would state that you should do one or the other
despite knowledge for or against it. The act may be correct, or not, but it has no stable basis on which to measure to determine which it is.
Society is in a state of flux with the increased technology of communication and transportation creating immediacy between diverse regions. This is creating a conflict of values on an unprecedented scale. Even with that observation, how can one conclude that religion is no longer useful. Perhaps with so much changing so fast, the security of tradition is more important that ever? The topic is just enormously complex and quick dismissal makes me pause and question.
The change to allow women to vote, or work, in the United states was quick and dramatic... should it of gone slower? This can be taken to extremes, such as the right to beat your wife because of the historical tradition of buying women (women always being property) and so forth.
Doing what is right and good should be the first concern of all people, not following old rules simply because they exist. The spread of reason has created change - change that allows old traditions to be replaced.
Times change and the argument goes that the change towards more philosophical and scientific reasoning is superior to religion and tradition.
There are certainly plenty of examples of political regimes professing science and reason as their tool for social dominance.
People are people - the tool always changes. Just look at how little the citizens of the US follow their very own research into RWA from the 50's, or launching what wouldn't follow under just war under Christian doctrine. It goes both ways, unfortunately.
If reason isn't guidance, then why apply it as guidance? Moving people away from their traditions and natural course is precisely guidance.
Reason is the way we think, how we define and adapt our knowledge. We all have it and we all do it, no matter what our traditions are. If we want to build something, we need knowledge and reason. It's, in that sense, absolute.
Traditions offer an external value system. No one is asking for traditions to be destroyed - traditions are destroyed by change, not reason. The only thing that reason threatens is traditions that
assume knowledge, which can then be disproved. The same applies with religion. The only thing that reason threatens is the assumed knowledge because reason uses and creates knowledge, and by its very nature, requires it to reflect reality.
I guess in that sense, it does offer guidance. It just isn't codified, always changing. It is a form of internal thought. It is no different than telling a child to think something out before he acts. I suppose that is guidance.