Peter Hume,
I don't know how to respond to you other than to say that your latest efforts continue to distort and misrepresent what I've said. I've said nothing that isn't philosophically valid and up to date.
Much as I'd love to read the quaint old text you provide the link for, I don't have the time, though you might like to look at this much shorter article provided by Poirot in another thread: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/
It directly contradicts the neoliberalism you support, and the historian's not a Marxist.
Btw, I have not and do not conflate the problem of objectivity with ideology.

Squeers

You’re still blowing hot and cold on the central question of whether anyone can logically disprove your economic theories, on the one hand saying “obviously” we can use logic, and on the other, saying it might be “liberal rationalism” to attempt it.

That is *not* a philosophically valid response, it’s evasion and self-contradiction.

(How does liberal rationalism differ from non-liberal-rationalism?)

The article does not contradict the freedom I support (what’s neolliberalism? – you’ve never defined it). It merely shows that, like you, the author begs all the questions and is confused about the economics. He identifies Mises and Hayek as grandfathers of the Chicago school of economics – they are not. They are leading figures of the Austrian school of economics. (The Chicago school advocates a central role for government in “managing” the economy. The Austrian school logically proves that interventionism causes the social problems that your economic confusion blames on capitalism.)

American society has never been as intensively and extensively regulated, and government has never been as big, and socialist, as it is today. Fully fifty percent of the nation’s product is hoovered up the snout of government and *all* of it is spent on forcing prices to different levels. The interventionist argument is that this interventionism will make essential goods and services cheaper, and promote social harmony. The Austrian argument is that this will produce crony corporate capitalism and a slide towards fascism while disadvantaging the poorest.

Now. Which theory has more explaining power?

What bothers me is that you don’t – as an honest opponent would do – represent the Austrian arguments and then refute them. You just pretend that they don’t exist, even after referred to them.

The point is, to persist in believing a theory when there are reasons to think is wrong, to flee from disproof, and just keep trotting out the same old slogans and refuted arguments, is the intellectual hallmark of *religions*, your intellectual bedfellows.

So – can your theories be logically disproved, or not? Then please answer the specific questions I’ve asked you and stop evading.

Dear Dr Meredith Doig, let me try and get this straight.

You claim to be rational, and claim to be interested in rational dialogue with others.

You then accuse a friend of being dishonest (for no apparent reason) and then wonder why you suffer breakdown in your communication. 
  
I'll give you a tip.  Meaningful discussion starts with a belief that the other person deserves certain levels of courtesy and respect. When you accuse someone of dishonesty, any meaningful discussion is threatened because of the implied failure of trust. Any subsequent gesture or remark from that person, by defintion, becomes suspect, and meaningful communication will cease.

This has nothing to do with religion versus non-religion. Both those of faith and those of no faith are capable of displaying reason.

Yet it comes as no surprise that anyone who upholds Christopher Hitchens as being particularly rational should need elements of basic reason and common courtesy explained to them.  

Dr Doig,
I'm the one gobsmacked. Have a listen to youself.

 "Anyone who believes in God is just being intellectually dishonest".

You insult your friend and then write an article about their emotional reaction. At no point did you ever consider that what you said may have been a little over the top.

I kind of agree with you that Christians, non believers and others can work better towards achieving meaningful and rational dialogue. But to claim the high ground of rationality is not what you've evidenced in this case, No, quite the opposite.

I was born in South Africa where it said that there are only three topics of conversation: sport, politics, and religion. When we came to Australia we found that two of those three were unacceptable in polite discussion. I agree that is a pity.

In my experience, Christians generally are more willing than the average person to engage with others in various ways: in articulating their views, in debates and mutually beneficial discussions. I remember in my days at Latrobe University that the Christian groups were strong and participated in the student newspaper and in various issues and debates. I think that tradition there still continues today.

However, I think in the example you've shown above, you should accept some of the blame for having put your foot in your mouth, and maybe learn something going forward.   

Given the incontrovertible nature of the evidence for evolution, perusable at any university library, any argument for special creation is bogus. Creationists are intellectually dishonest.

The literary history of the "bible" ends roughly 1600 years ago, showing great signs of extensive fabrication at that point.
Biblical literalists who do not open discussions acknowledging this are intellectually dishonest.

This leaves a nebulous deism which, if it honestly acknowledges the likely non-involvement of such deity in the emergence of humans, let alone the irrelevance of supposedly religious literature, can hardly constitute a "god" of the type our cultures have conceptualise.

So left only with this literature of human origin, we can imagine it yet contains useful metaphor and allegory for the human condition. An untutored manual in basic psychology perhaps? Still, it is dishonest to claim much more than this for it, historical accuracy for instance.
Even churches that acknowledge the principally metaphorical value of the "bible" don't emphasise this to their flock. Intellectual dishonesty again.

Such dishonesty dilutes and misallocates the respect more proerly accrued to individuals who advance ethics despite the ridiculously hidebound constraints of a merely literary tradition.

Belief in "god" without qualification? Intellectual dishonesty.

Rusty

Rusty,
If you were aiming for irony you might have scored something, but I know you better. I know that you actually believe  what you've written passes for 'argument'. Yet it's name calling at the lowest level. 

Dear Dr Doig, 
Is this what you hoped for in your call for more 'healthy minded' discussion?