[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

[Platt]
No, I do not accept "emergence" as a worthwhile explanation. It's tantamount
to "oops" which explains nothing. Nor do I find "self-organizing"
enlightening, especially when many who ascribe to that idea also claim
"self" as nonexistent.
As for magic, every time a chick steps out whole from an egg like the one I
had for breakfast this morning, I see teleology. But, I could be wrong.  

[Case]
Since all the really serious arguments against teleology and purpose have
had little effect, try this one:

The real problem with the idea of "design," "purpose," "teleology" and
"designer" comes down to: designed by who, for what? If there is a purpose
what is it? According to who? How would we know it if we saw it? What
distinguishes it from just shit happening.

The Christians answer that it is a manifestation of divine will but the
moment you start to get specific you get: "the Lord moves in mysterious
ways" or to quote him directly: "My ways are not your ways and my thoughts
are not your thoughts." Christians thrive not on knowing God's will but
resigning themselves to whatever it turns out to be. I submit that that
God's unknowable will is indistinguishable from randomness. 

In Sirens of Titan, Vonnegut's stranded Trafamadorian space traveler
engineers the whole of human history in order to request spare parts from
his home world.

The real purpose of Purpose is to provide leverage for the interpreters of
Purpose. God's purpose is not so much what God says it is, as how we
interpret what God means when he says whatever it is he says.

Call it Love, call it Oneness, call it Cosmic Consciousness, call it the
Hodge and the Podge. Purpose does not explain anything. It begs for
explanation and that's when all the trouble starts.