In Buddhism, to be independent is to be free. To be subjected to dependencies is to be in bondage.
Herein lies a great dilemma for individuals. If you can't prove the validity of something for yourself, you're at the mercy of the integrity of a third party and your faith in them.
Put another way, if you accept something you yourself can't validate through personal experience, you entrust yourself to another being right about their insights. So it is with any faith or religion.
I perceive the reason religions are so precious about their holy texts is because they in themselves are the only piece of integrity they have. You must trust the keepers of those texts not to have altered them. Translators to have fully understood and accurately translated them. The original author to have impartially communicated all that was revealed to them. That is an enormous amount of trust and faith you're bestowing on a vast array of people.
I believe an important aspect of human nature to bear in mind is that if any one person is capable of something, all other humans are capable of the same thing with the right focus of mind.
That is, the ability to learn and play guitar, juggle or do complex mathematics is within the grasp of any able bodied person. Some have a natural predisposition, but most have the ability to develop those skills.
I point this out because it underlines everyone is capable or has the potential to discern the truth for themselves. There is no exclusion from enlightenment, therefore little reason not to pursue it. In so doing you improve your own situation and therefore other's being able to assist them in the same process.
The four reliances in Buddhism:
1.Do not rely on the individual, but on the Dharma
2.Do not rely on the words, but on the meaning
3.Do not rely on the provisional meaning, but on the definitive meaning
4. Do not rely on the ordinary mind, but rely on wisdom
The three arguments:
Argument from authority (weakest)
Argument from logic and rational reasons
Argument from direct knowledge (best)
Even though one may not have actual experience of the truth, one can still rely on logical argument and rational reasoning. This is my basis of whether I accept an argument, a teaching, etc. I cannot speak for you, but as far as I am concerned, I do not accept argument from authority blindly or with faith alone. Whatever I accept is provisional. I will change my mind if someone can give me a better argument or reasoning, or when I have direct experience.
As far as holy texts are concerned, I don't accept unquestioningly whatever is in them because there can be so many sources of errors in these texts. Texts also have to be understood in context. For example, I would not accept the explanation of world system in the form of Mt Meru, four continents etc. As far as I am concerned, these are provisional explanations based on what the people at that time believed to be true. People at that time are not equipped to understand modern cosmology. Even now, many people are not equipped to understand modern cosmology and modern science.