Beliefs are Superior to Natural Law(?)

The quote for discussion is "discover beliefs; beliefs are superior to natural law."

Let's define what we are talking about. Belief is a mental attitude (i.e.,  your average way of thinking) which a person accepts or regards  as true. It involves taking the world to be a certain way, often accompanied by varying degrees of confidence, but not necessarily with full certainty or knowledge. Beliefs guide action, reasoning, and emotion; they can be conscious or unconscious, justified or unjustified, true or false. 

Belief is closely associated with: Knowledge: is justified belief.  (I believe X to be true because...); Faith: involves belief plus trust or commitment, it sometimes involves going beyond, or against available evidence, (I don't know why X is true, but I just feel that it is).  Opinion: A belief held with less firmness or evidential support (I think X may be true, but I don't know.)

It seems to me that a large number of humans operate on opinion.  They hold beliefs without evidence or even faith.  

A majority of humans operate on faith.  Currently some 76 to 84% of the world's population holding to some form of organized faith system. They hold to their faith based on belief with the addition of trust or commitment.  

A minority of humans operate on knowledge, beliefs based on evidence.

Beliefs are central to human cognition but can be influenced by biases, emotions, culture, and evidence (or lack thereof). In other words, beliefs, knowledge, faith, or opinion, have a component of uncertainty to them.

Natural law refers to a philosophical and legal theory observing that there are inherent, universal moral principles discoverable through human reason, derived from nature, human flourishing, or divine order. Thus natural law relies on our reason observing human nature and ends there. It does not strictly require belief in God though many historical versions link it to divine reason or eternal law. So then, natural law would seem to have an advantage of a consensus of societies, and a certain amount of objective evidence to support it.

The idea that belief might be superior to natural law is not a mainstream tenet in philosophy or jurisprudence. But here are a few insights in which it might be so.

1.  In some religious traditions personal belief or revealed faith is seen as transcending the limits of unaided reason. Natural law, being reason-based, is viewed as incomplete due to human fallenness or sin. Divine revelation provides superior guidance for salvation and morality. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, saw natural law as real but subordinate to eternal/divine law and needing supplementation by revelation. 

2. In modern natural law theory “religion” (harmony with a divine source or ultimate reality) is a fundamental good. For believers, commitment to it can take precedence to practical reasoning. This gives belief/faith a kind of superiority in certain contexts, without denying natural law’s validity, e.g. killing is wrong, unless you are killing in the name of God.

3.  Thinkers skeptical of pure reason might argue lived belief, personal conviction, or revealed truth offers a more authentic, transformative, or “superior” foundation for ethics and meaning. Natural law might describe “what is” morally, but belief drives “why we care”, or provides ultimate purpose.

4. Belief can motivate action, foster community, and provide resilience in ways detached reason (natural law) sometimes does not. History shows people acting on deep beliefs (religious or ideological) overriding legal or rational norms. However, this can be dangerous if beliefs are false or harmful.

Ultimately, whether belief is “superior” depends on one’s worldview. Rationalist or secular views prioritize evidence-based natural law. Religious views may see faith as elevating or fulfilling it. The tension between subjective belief and objective moral order remains at its core. 

I would suggest that the quote be changed to discover YOUR beliefs for they bring you purpose, the "why", to natural law.  

Natural law provides an objective, shareable moral framework accessible to reason, superior to subjective belief or whim, and serves to prevent tyranny or relativism. Belief without rational grounding risks subjectivism and arbitrariness, favoritism, and actions without standards.