Donnie,

Not "Faith", rather a commitment towards a proposition, that needs to validated be confirms and tested for falsifiability. Faith is more to do with a priori position, "indwelling" [worship] in an experience and seeking out verifications [as with some Marx and Freud, in Popper].

Science is a methodology which makes tentative posits and constantly challenges [except the pride of some individuals, perhaps]the status quo.

In earlier theads, I have mentioned Church/Temple/Mosque is about experiencing worshiping and affirmation, not knowledge exchange.

Donnie, in the RCC, how often have seen a parshioner stand-up and debate the priest? Yet, as university lecturer, I have had students challenge me.

What would happen were you to ask/call out in the middle of a Easter sermon, Did Jesus commit suicide? Alernatively, in Management lecture what, if I were state that Sales Volume is a poor dependent variable to measure as a scale? The former has solidified its answer. The latter, is open to attack.

That begs the question who provided the answers, in the first place, well councils from Ur to Luxor, from Luxor to Nicaea, and, from Nicaea to Vatican II and beyond. The Kernels are politics, poor and control and priesthoods,leveraging ignorance and overlordship. Even Abarlard and Lurther saw it, but, did not achieve escape velocity. Today, suspect, these guys would have been Sagans and Dawkinses.

Donnie,

If you cannot see how using an anaolgy to illustrate a principle, and should only be used as illustration, is different to extending that analogy to form the BASIS of an argument, then good luck in Logic 101.

We (at least I) have only used the computer analogy to illustrate how information processing can work and be more than just a pile of parts of metal and silicon. But thats where it ends. You on the other hand have used it as the basis of an inferential argument, ie, that if we are like computers then we must also have creators like them. But we are not computers, we are not digital, and we have not stated that we were, and so your inference breaks down, as all analogies must under critical scrutiny. After all, they are only illustrations of principle with a very limited applicability.

If you want to argue that an analogy must hold up under all circumstances, then thats stupid. Observe:

Smart guy: "A brain is like a computer, in that it processes information"
Idiot: "oh, so it's made of silicon and metal and microchips and stuff?"
Smart guy: "No"
Idiot: "So, it needs to be rebooted and needs to be defragmented after long periods of use? Needs constant updating of software? Can have its memory replaced?"
Smart guy: "No"
Idiot: "Then how can you say it is like a computer? It's not like a computer at all."
Smart guy: "Moron"

Donnie ego as in the self, self perception and the bias the perception of self creates in the intellectual analysis the brain conducts of the outside world.

I use ego because it is a noun and selfishness doesnt really fit all that ego implies.

Oliver,
At the death of Jesus his body no longer expressed his soul till he was resurrected. As I have said the body is the medium through which the soul is expressed. It was not till his ascension when he had completely left a natural chemical body.

Focus on the body does not the give adequate recoginition of the true person. The true person is the expression of the life lived. Death as is life are beautiful demonstrations of the creativity of our designer (Eccl 3: 2). Wether we are 19 or 90 our bodies have changed by decay and renewal but our soul is still "me". The very cells of our bodies have completely changed every seven years.

Philo,

Thanks.

So you are saying that the Body of Jesus lived for 33 years [renewal of cells aside]? Herein, his soul existed before and now exists after his death? The Body a conduit? The souil, lightning through a lightning rod? Please confirm or refute or correct from your perspective.

Oliver,
"Science is a methodology which makes tentative posits and constantly challenges ... the status quo."
Could not agree more, which is why i say it is also foolish not to constantly challenge materialist insistency.

Bugsy,
I understand what you are saying and if I had made that blunder i'd recant, however if you look back over my posts you'll find i was only raising a question about the computer-robot analogy, not making an argument FOR authorship but merely showing that this analogy - when used to assert a materialist viewpoint - is problematic. That's all. Oliver followed this up well with his nature and nurture posit but i argue that this still does not verify physical monism.
I don't deny the existance of emergent phenomena and if that is all the computing analogy is employed to show and not as evidence for absolute materialism, then fine, although it seems slightly irrelevant in that case.

My position with regards to this debate has generally been one of negation: challenging the steadfast materialist attitude (which i see as akin to the zeal of many religionists) and thus leaving open the *possibility* of authorship and/or superintendence.
The established religions of the world might all have it wrong and may be a liability to man, but this does not mean that materialists wield the truth nor does it mean that a dualist (or other) metaphysical reality is not a possibility. That's my arguement in a nutshell. Which is why i also argue that belief in God or non-material existance is not irrational or primitive, and religious pursuits are not necessarily pointless.
I find that many dig in on the materialist stronghold in reaction to the often unreasonable and annoying insistence of the religious vanguard. I think this response is likewise unreasonable.

West, thanks. It is the underlying question of what is this self or ego that is debatable. I don't entertain that we'll solve it all here and now on OLO seeing as it has been a mystery to man for several millennia (or longer?), but it is fun to argue anyway :).