Picking and choosing at will, here's my version of the story so far:
Paul defined "materialism" as "the doctrine that the material world is all there is."
Step2 claimed that "moderate materialists can emphasize the material world without rejecting poetic metaphor and our moral sense."
Paul replied that "most materialists are indeed moderate, in the sense of moderately disbelieving in materialism." [heh - good one! - ed.]
Bill Luse demanded to know: "What the hell is a moderate materialist?"
I suggested that emergent materialists, among others, were moderates, in comparison to eliminative materialists.
Bill Luse objected: "there's no such thing as a moderate materialist."
Lydia chimed in with Bill Luse: "hear, hear."
Well. OK. So here's [sic] my two bits:
(1) I do think it's worth distinguishing between the likes of John Searle, on the one hand, and Paul & Patricia Churchland (the most notorious representatives of eliminative materialism) on the other.
Not only does Searle's position have a distinguished pedigree, but it at least takes seriously the deep problems faced by any genuinely materialist position and tries to offer a solution. So it's no surprise that Ed Feser treats Searle very respectfully in his book. The Churchland's, on the other hand...well, as Ed puts it: "if [their view] doesn't sound utterly bizarre, you haven't understood it."
(2) Philosophy of Mind ain't my field, but, personally, I think that moderate materialism has one, if only one, strength - i.e., the weaknesses of the available alternatives:
Cartesian substance dualism?
The craziness of it all is almost enough to drive one back into the arms of Aristotle & St. Thomas, with their "hylemorphic dualism."