Are RW Conservative as Delusional as the Fundies?

A few weeks ago SYL asked me why I was less harsh on those Conservative 'Divine Inspiration' (DI) types who accept the DH but still insist that God somehow 'Divinely Inspired' the whole thing, albeit through multiple people over many centuries. SYL argues that since from a rational perspective there is no evidence about God, and certainly no evidence at all that God 'Divinely Inspired' a particular book, why should this position be any better than a straight up OJ position? And in fact, you could even say better: Since these people accept the DH and reject the basic tenets of Jewish Faith, it appears that they are even less rational than OJ, since they reject OJ but still cling to some DI claim.

I have very mixed feelings about this. My gut says that these people are more rational than OJ, but my brain refuses to provide a good argument for why. I'm epistemologically savvy enough to realize that when this type of thing happens, it usually is a good sign of bias. For the same reason that I ended up rejected MO over Chareidism, it seems I am forced to reject DI style RW Conservative too.

The only argument I can think of goes as follows:

Since the Bible has inspired countless people towards a more moral religious life, then that shows that God must have inspired it somehow.

Of course the problem with this is that this argument can work for other religious texts too, which is indeed how it is often used. And the other problem is that it's a totally lame argument with no real evidence behind it.

So, unless someone can provide a good defense of DI, I'm going to have to stick with my current position, which can briefly be summarized as follows:

Nobody knows anything about God, and all religion is man made. Not that there's anything wrong with that.