Humans believe all sorts of things based on authority for the simple reason that we cannot verify every idea/claim ourselves. We have neither the expertise nor the time to do so. We have to trust what competent authorities tell us. As long we don’t have good reason to doubt what we are being told by the authority, we consider the authority to be reputable and trustworthy (it helps when a bunch of other people trust that authority, too).

This is why people become so skeptical when they discover that a source of authority in their life has been lying to them: They naturally wonder who else might be lying as well. And since they can’t verify most claims, they become skeptical of most claims. They don’t know if they can trust any authority at all to tell them what is true.

When it comes to determining religious truth, it often comes down to which authority a person trusts. Do they trust a particular religious person to tell them what’s true? Do they trust a particular religious text to tell them what’s true? Do they only trust their own thoughts/feelings? What is their authority, and why do they think he/she/it is trustworthy?

I’m convinced that religious discussions need to start with establishing the proper authority for religious truth. Is it a particular text? Is it a particular person or organization? Is it tradition? Is it feelings? If each person in the conversation is already committed to two competing religious authorities, the discussion needs to focus on an examination of each authority to determine which is more reliable. People will not be moved to change their religious beliefs until they are convinced that their current religious authority is not trustworthy.