Reasoning vs trusting authority.

[Mystic]

All religions have to admit that their religion was not found everywhere at every time.

If humanity has a purpose, then that purpose should be achievable without the guidance of the "true" religion.

This is because if that purpose is not achievable without religion, then only some of humanity has that purpose, and the purpose is then not universal to humanity.

Now having said that, religions like Islam and Christianity do believe those who didn't receive the religion can achieve their purpose.

They believe human reasoning and innate knowledge can lead them.

Now having said that, who is better off here, a person who perceives morals through reasoning and insight, has perception of his purpose through reasoning and reflection or a person who follows a path based on authority.

The reason I'm saying this, a huge argument I hear from Christians and Muslims, is that we need to trust in God as opposed to our reasoning. What they mean by God here is of course the holy book.

Reasoning is praised ofcourse when it confirms teachings of the holy book but when it contradicts or a law seems unreasonable, it is condemned as unreliable while authority (Quran/Bible) is reliable.

My question is what is more dignified of a human. To act as he sees praiseworthy or to follow praise of authority without perceiving the reality of that praise?

[Minimalist]

You assume that "Authority" is "authoratative." Dubious assumption.

(The Authorities usually have an agenda!)

[Ike963]

Convincing people to trust the boogeyman before they trust their own mind, to me, is the power of the church. I think more people are realizing this, or coming to the realization. When my parents realized they were attending a church that conflicted with their societal views (the church required that women wear a head covering of some kind during mass), they chose to go with their societal morals.

[Mystic]

I'm going to give an example.

To not murder. If we don't murder because God says so in the Bible or Quran, then the intention of obeying God is the reason. But if that is the case, there is no difference between disobeying God not to murder or disobeying God not to lie.

But if there is a difference, it would be that the intention of one is a whole lot more vile due to the nature of the consequence of the action (which is one factor). But this is perception.

But if we act on perception, we know the degree of praiseworthiness or condemnation of an action. The same is not true if we simply obey out of obeying authority.

[EGross]

Which is better, to do something morally right because you know it is right, or to do it because out of fear, and because you have accepted a supernatual Master, who you will try to obey?

And not only Christianit and Islam, but also the Rambam, the codefier of Jewish law states that a person who has a good moral code, but does not do it because God told him, but by his own volition, has no share in "the world to come".

So now you have at least three religions where your servitude is necessary to avoid nothingness or damnation. And, of course, if you pick the wrong one, according to each, you will also get the same punishment.

Cool, huh?

[Mister Agenda]

We have to take some things on authority simply because we don't have time to reason out every single thing in our lives. Appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy, on a matter that is settled and on which the authority appealed to is actually an authority on that subject. However, if someone is actually an authority on an actual God, we have no way to know it. With a legitimate appeal to authority, like to a mathematician about a math problem or your spouse about how their day went, you can either check the work or the matter is so trivial and mundane it's reasonable to take their word on something they should know. The most important consideration is if they are in a position to know the truth about the topic in question.

Using a mathematician for a history question or a fortune teller for your spouse's day is more problematic. I love my hypothetical Aunt Petunia, I really trust her, and if she tells me the stove is hot, I won't touch it to check. However, if she tells me there are dogs playing poker on Venus and it's clear she's not joking; a serious investigation will follow, starting with what meds she is taking. Not just because the claim is so improbable, but because it's something she can't know, even if it's true.