That is certainly true.

I concur.

Readers might benefit from the following footnotes:

For links on Craig being a grifter and not a sincere delusionist see the opening section of William Lane Craig’s Duplicitous Denial That Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

That Christianity is, nevertheless, generally a delusion, no different than flat earthism for example, see Christianity Is a Conspiracy Theory.

That it can easily be swapped out for a more credible yet still completely false delusion (since the fact that that specific delusional worldview features the supernatural is actually trivial; it is thus easily fixed by retooling it into a naturalist delusion) I discuss in the closing section of That Jordan Peterson Is a Crank: A Handy Guide.

Mr. Deity has a term that hasn’t caught on as much as ‘excusagist’ and ‘Low-Bar Bill’, and that term is: ‘Godzheimers’, where an apologist seemingly conveniently forgets about those elsewheres in his/her Theology.

I agree with Carrier that William Lane Craig is a grifter. But why might Carrier have that opinion of him? Is it because Classical Theism and Supernaturalist Christianity, in our day and age, is completely untenable? Is it because Craig, at some level, is intelligent enough to arrive at this inescapable conclusion?

The problem is, as I see it, that any version of either Supernaturalist Christianity or Classical Theism takes such a profound stupidity to believe in sincerely. A point that I constantly make is that as the Internet and AI get better and better, the intelligence threshold for figuring out the falsehood of Christianity gets lower and lower. As Captain Cassidy points out: we have in our pockets ‘magical rectangles’, i.e. Smartphones, that can fact-check any one of Christianity’s almost numberless false claims. Thus, the intelligence of a sincerely true believer is constantly diminishing.

Hitchens makes this point in ‘God is Not Great’. There will never again be another Saint Thomas Aquinas in Christendom, as a man of his intellect, if living in our day, would quickly discover the falsehood of Christianity. Hitchens says that the intellectual caliber of the religious has declined so much such that there will never again be a lesser genius in Christianity such as John Henry Newman. As Information Technology increases, the intellectual capacity of true belivers decreases.

I then ask myself: is this apologist profoundly stupid, or is he psychotically deluded, or is he a con artist? I usually end up thinking to myself that the apologist in question is either psychotically deluded or a con-artist, as instances of such profound stupidity are rare indeed.

And when we catch the likes of Turek and Craig in dishonest rhetorical tricks, then this is merely further evidence that they are cynical con artists. In a video from two years ago, Steven Woodford of Rationality Rules caught Craig and Bertuzzi in dishonest tactics.

https://youtu.be/X8QeVEd5tcM?si=VL8oAWSotCy62IbN

Richard: Absolutely. And I’m going to be soft on someone protecting their ego with rage as compared to the dishonest but superficially more civil behavior of WLC.

Also, by my watch, while he definitely could be a bit strident and occasionally got testy, he really did work hard to stay charming and to make jokes. It felt like a chat and not a really contentious debate. Not at all like Tour and Professor Dave, as an example.

Good point about Scriptural Perspicuity. Obviously there are vastly clearer ways for the Bible to say what Preston wants. So he cannot believe in SP. That might pose a problem elsewhere in his theology (Why would God not speak plainly about things so important? And since we mere humans can, does this mean we are wiser and more capable than God?).

Of course, we were not debating theology or the existence of God. But, yeah, as a side-note.

To me, Preston had the tone of a preacher gish-galloping through proof-texts, whereas Carrier had the tone of someone giving a talk, or even a lecture. Even the loudness of Preston’s voice. It seemed to me as though Preston was in Preacher mode, preaching to a Church Hall down his microphone.

Turek also modulates the loudness of his voice in this wise. The more sense Turek thinks that he is making, the louder he talks. As Prophet of Zod points out, Turek has a number of dishonest tricks that he employs so as to unnerve his interlocutor.

However, in my view Turek is completely cynical, whereas I agree that Preston is probably not.

On another note, would Preston adhere to the doctrine of Scriptural Perspicuity? Not to employ the etymological fallacy, but ‘perspicuitas’, in Latin, means: ‘possessing the ability to be seen clearly through’. If the Biblical text be perspicuous, then non-specialists ought to be able to ascertain its meaning… at least as regards major doctrines like the End of the World. To me, the Bible is not perspicuous if it teaches, in a highly convoluted and interpretive manner—and defying the plain sense of what the Scripture actually says—that there will be a “spiritual” end of the world that most of the world’s inhabitants, both then and since, took no notice of.

Whereas the debate with Mark Smith was similarly mostly good-tempered, there were times when Smith took off the gloves, and told Preston to get real. Smith and Carrier did a team debate, once.

I agree with Fred, insofar as I am sure Don is sincere. He’s a crank, not a grifter.

However, I did notice his flirting with rage, hyperbole, and ad hominem a few times (and not only in this debate, but in others of his I watched). Though he didn’t try to game the audience with emotional tricks nearly as often as someone like William Lane Craig, it did happen a few times.

I don’t think this is because he is a grifter like Craig. I think (from experience with this happening a lot) that delusional people get this way when cornered. Cognitive dissonance requires either you flee, or you get aggressive and hyper-arrogant (even angry and insulting).

The difference can be subtle, but for example, consider how Don used the well poisoning fallacy about historicity: I got the distinct impression he really believes that is relevant and that it really does discredit my position somehow. He has, in effect, conned himself.

By contrast, when Craig did this in our debate, it was unmistakably intentional. And I know this because he and I discussed it before the debate, so I know he knew the issue was irrelevant and that I would grant historicity for the debate; he turned around and poisoned the well anyway, knowing full well it was an irrelevant and purely audience-manipulating move to waste clock time on (Craig is also a professional debater, so he well knows what a timewaste is, and never wastes time).

Ciaran: I find your take on his behavior pretty interesting. I got the exact opposite vibe. I know it can be frustrating to have someone delusionally committed to an idea tell you brazenly false things, but Don isn’t a slick Craig-esque liar. His cross-ex with Richard seemed quite sincere and showed quite clearly that he hadn’t understood the points. I think Don looks like a nice guy who has a bad, crank idea. And that makes me have a soft spot for him, as compared to the IO cranks who have been to a person arrogant, rude and deliberately incompetent.

It is at least plausible enough to at least vet once. So, that’s about as seriously as we should take it.

It isn’t like flat earthism in that respect. Because all the elements of the theory are true. Prophetic language was a thing; figurative and metaphorical discourse was a thing; weird ways of interpreting scripture and rethinking religious ideas were a thing; and prophecies were deliberately obscure to allow hedging, and in result even post-hoc prophecy was made deliberately obscure so as to look like authentic prophecy, allowing a lot of room for interpretation.

The only thing that doesn’t hold together is Preston’s particular assembly of these elements in this case.

I agree.

And for readers, that UFO cult thesis became the book When Prophecy Fails and it originated the psychological concept and study of cognitive dissonance. Which is exactly what is happening with Don (and all Christians who evade admitting the truth by any device).