It's value lies -- not in showing that it is prudent to believe in God -- but that a prudent person must take the question of God's existence seriously.
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments
Maybe an alternative version of what you propose would be to say that before one considers whether God exists, one must recognize that the very act of seeking to know the answer is an act that is demanded by the very structure of human desire, and especially by that form of desire called wonder.
Instead of saying "even if God doesn't exists" it says "before we attempt to answer the question of whether..."