Well I'm pleased that Squeers has now contributed more than just a one line dismissal of a whole philosophical movement.

No doubt, in that interests of rational comparison of both sides, of the debate, Squeers will eventually offer a critique of his beloved book from sources like:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/why-does-plobs-think-its-possible-that-c-is-in-all-matter-t10275-480.html

These are categorically not opposites, Squeers, so you can't employ "rather than".

>>Like it or not, materialist explanations are premised on scientistic prejudice rather than evidence.<<

They are very much on the same side of the equation.

What you call "scientific prejudice" is of course a necessary precondition to the gathering of evidence.

The opposite of "scientific prejudice" is "religious prejudice" in this context. And "belief" is the opposite of "evidence".

Materialistic explanations are based upon evidence. Evidence is based upon the preference of scientific explanations over religious belief, which does not require evidence.

So I'm afraid that "materialist explanations are premised on scientistic prejudice rather than evidence" is certainly not a case of "like it or not".

It is either a misstatement or a misreading, because it definitely isn't true.

Pericles,
the link I gave above allows limited reading of the text, hopefully you can access pages 3-23, as this will make the position I've sketched clear.
But you don't need to go further than Descarte and Hume to fathom the sand that modern science is built on. Hume argued that only nature, as registered by the senses (empiricism), could be trusted, apparently forgetting that sense perception still relies on reason to make sense of it.
It's not that science isn't productive or hasn't achieved amazing things, and certainly not that it should be discarded, but that science begins with the unsubstantiated premise that everything in the universe is explicable in materialist terms. There is no good reason to make this assumption, we simply don't know and it is unwise to close our minds to extraordinary possibilities--that's all I'm really saying. The notion that phenomena is reducible to simple cause and effect, based on our superficial and prejudiced perception of it, buys into the Newtonian reduction that phenomena is nothing more than dead matter behaving respectively and predictably.
You say, "What you call "scienti[stic] prejudice" is of course a necessary precondition to the gathering of evidence".
But while it's certainly true that "objectivity" is prerequisite (and unattainable), deciding beforehand that the answer "must" be materialistic, is prejudice.
And I have to differ with you that <"The opposite of "scientific prejudice" is "religious prejudice">; I did say that "Of course I'm not saying we therefore should resort to supernaturalism".
I'm against all forms of prejudice or preconception. We simply don't know, and so far can't begin to explain human consciousness, or the "spontaneous" generation of "meaning" in the universe (we still don't even know what gravity is!). These could well be merely contingent, or there could be far more exotic explanations.
So to annotate your position, "Materialistic explanations are based upon [superficial and unreliable] evidence [processed via eccentric human brains]".
"Evidence is based upon the preference of scientific explanations over religious belief, which does not require evidence".
"Preference" is synonymous with prejudice.

@ Squeers, Sunday, 29 May 2011 7:46:14 PM,
who asserts:

1. "We simply don't know, and so far can't begin to explain human consciousness ..."
Surely Squeers has fallen into a giant Epimenidean Paradox, by so emphatically asserting that: "WE KNOW ... THAT NO ONE KNOWS."
Well, I certainly reject being embraced by his presumptuous use of "we", for I would never utter such a self-contradiction.

2. In fact Squeers utters yet another self- contradiction when he asserts that :
(He KNOWS that) - "there could be far more exotic explanations", without justifying that these exotica even exist, let alone offering no support or reference for these exotica.

3. I also quite reject his (scientifically) unsupported assertion that:
"... we still don't know what gravity is ! ..."

That is committing the sin of the false binary divide, that we either "know all" or we "know nothing" (about gravity).

I could support a claim that we still don't know everything - about gravity, (perhaps that will ever be true), but I cannot support his claim that therefore we know nothing.
We certainly know more than Galileo, and much more than The Inquisitorial Church !

4. For a person who takes extreme (personal) umbrage at 3rd vs 1st person ungrammaticisms, it is surprising he doesn't exact his <passionate puerile pedanticism> upon his flagrant abuse of plurality with "phenomena vs phenomenon". This modality of argument by him is that of substituting "I am offended" for "What you say is unfactual." This modality is famous (and provably invalid) in the 'gender wars' arena.

Ugg clearly has nothing of worth to offer in refutation of Squeers's modest appraisal of the situation, and so can only respond, it seems, with misquotation, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and heavy-handed emphasis on his false attributions.
So far as I can ascertain the gravest innuendo, hysterically asserted, against Squeers is <his flagrant abuse of plurality with "phenomena vs phenomenon">
A heinous crime indeed! Yet having scanned Squeers's usage of "phenomena", I find he quite correctly refers in each case to phenomenal plurality.
Squeers has conceded to me in private, however, that he is not above the odd grammatical sin, and begs the indulgence of his peers in advance for future indiscretions.
For my part, I can only urge the court to compare Squeers's comments with Ugg's perversions of them. Indeed, Ugg's shrill excoriations are reminiscent of a rabid preacher with nothing to prefer but maleloquent indignation.

Squeers

Enjoyed your links. Agreed science doesn't have all the answers and that it requires a more lateral approach. I do believe that scientists will achieve this - some types of research require the rigor needed to test and affirm evidence, others require a more intuitive responsive approach.

One thing we are all agreed on is teaching an ancient myth, in place of science, analysis and philosophy leads to mind-stagnation as the more extreme fundamentalist religionists have proved with their posts (yes, Dan that includes you - I am amazed you can use a PC). Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but I am very passionate about children (and adults) abilities to learn about the world around them. Without science none of us would be here right now arguing about it.

Religion is a part of our cultural heritage and needs be taught as such. And that is its place, under anthropology - study of human culture and nature.

Religion has no place being taught as fact in place of science.