Why does what we believe about God matter for the discipline of sociology?

Taken at its face, sociology is simply the study of human relationships and interactions.  As sociologists we attempt to understand the structures and influences on human beings and how those will affect people.  So what does God have to do with this?  In a world that values diversity, and is pluralistically influenced, this question is considered a taboo.  We aren’t allowed to introduce God into an equation or a model, because that will open up too much controversy.  Instead, we take God out of the equation, and the result is we have a form of institutionalized atheism at work.  This is all well and good, provided that the atheistic model is an accurate reflection of reality.  However, if there really is a God, then we are forcing ourselves to willfully ignore an aspect of reality.  This limits our ability to analyze human interactions, to model and successfully help people, and to have the full impact that we might strive for.  Let us look at one example of what happens when we put God into a model and compare the theistic vs atheistic models. 

If we are using the theistic model (here using the Judeo-Christian God), then what we find is there is literally an entire dimension of human reality that is not being taken into consideration when we are looking at the most basic of human relationships.  Now let’s see what happens when we examine the basis of authority in each of these models.

Here, we have one person achieving authority or leadership over another.  This is due to a perceived superiority on the part of one person, and inferiority on the part of the other.  This could even be as simple as status, a person with a PhD ignoring a valid criticism of a person who only has an MA for instance.

Now, this isn’t to say that this model hasn’t been absolutely horrendously abused over the years.  People take the authority they were given and use it for evils which were never meant to be committed.  I’m not remotely going to try and justify those actions here.  And I’m still processing all of this if I’m honest.  However, the purpose of this is to demonstrate that what we believe about God as a presupposition is important if we are to offer a proper representation of reality, by showing that there is a distinction between the way we will explain the source of authority in interpersonal relationships.  This has broader implications, into the way we evaluate inequalities for instance.

Now, we may still develop theories that work in spite of whether or not our beliefs in God are correct or not.  We may have models in place that explain a portion of reality.  However, if we really want to develop an accurate conception of reality, then we need to look beyond the raw data that we gather.   Our findings are colored and interpreted through a set of lenses.  These lenses are made up of our theological and philosophical beliefs.  These are not testable, there isn’t an experiment that will prove the existence of God or the nonexistence of God.  Here we must rely on logic and develop a theory that works in line with logical mandates like the infinite causality principle.  Ignoring metaphysical questions as if they were the realm of ignorant savages will not help us understand reality, we have to tackle these more nebulous concepts as will if we are to truly begin understanding the full picture of the complexity of human relationships.