[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?) - side question forPlatt and Arlo

[Case]

[Ham]
But the premise that Arlo and Case have taken is that no matter how we
define or describe a concept, it is a "word symbol" that can only be
compared with other word symbols.  Their philosophy is that any belief
system is necessarily symbolic and has no fundamental basis in reality.
Since the only reality we can "know" is the experienced world, belief is a
sham -- an "experimental enterprise":

[Case]
Golly Ham, I had resumed ignoring you after you didn't not comment on our
last exchange. But here you go taking my name in vain.

I thought you embraced subjectivity. How can you embrace it without
considering what it is and what implications it has. Subjectivity is the
construction of internal representations. There are those in our midst who
say that is all there is, these internal representations, and that there is
no external reality at all. At least I admit there are TiTs out there. But I
am happy to be lumped with Arlo. I think he has done a superlative job of
articulating what you call nihilism but which I like to think of as shit
happening.

[Ham]
I don't know if you have the patience to deal with nihilists, but I see no
point in discussing ontology or metaphysics with individuals who deny the
value of a philosophical concept.  I told Arlo to get back to me "when you
believe in something."

[Case]
So you construct elaborate phantasms of smoke and mirrors and when someone
says, "hey that's just fancy talking, wheels spinning," you call them a
nihilist and storm off.  

Is this your way of saying, "Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain. Go - before I lose my temper! The Great and Powerful Oz has
spoken"? 

If you use that hot air correctly it might take you back to Kansas.