The Honest Seeker's Duty: Critically Evaluating God-Concepts - 01

This paper defends a limited duty to inquire before making high-stakes religious commitments. The duty is not a demand that every person settle the existence of God, acquire certainty, or investigate forever. It applies when an agent is considering substantial reliance on a specific God-concept, further inquiry is feasible, and the expected epistemic or practical benefit warrants its cost. The paper corrects a common conflation by separating two verdicts. An epistemic audit asks which candidate, if any, is coherent and comparatively supported by the available evidence. An allegiance audit asks whether a candidate taken to exist merits trust, obedience, or worship. Desirability cannot be a condition for rational belief, since an undesirable being could exist; nor does existence alone establish authority or worship-worthiness. A disciplined inquiry therefore specifies the target concept, distinguishes independent from dependent evidence, compares live alternatives, identifies possible defeaters, and records what would change the conclusion. Religious disagreement and unconceived alternatives counsel humility but do not force equal credence. Private experience may ground person-relative justification without automatically becoming public evidence. The result is a symmetrical, bounded protocol that criticizes neither faith nor skepticism as such. It criticizes only the exemption of high-stakes commitments from the scrutiny used to distinguish responsible trust from inherited or self-sealing confidence.