Some earlier opponents of prophecy argued that human reason is sufficient for all relevant needs. Others maintained that a prophet is superfluous if he teaches what reason already knows, while his claims must be rejected if they contradict reason.
That argument overlooks a distinction between general truths available to reason and specific information and detailed instruction available through revelation. Reason may apprehend the goodness or possibility of something without determining its prescribed quantity, timing, procedure or eventual reward.
Recognizing a need for revelation does not disparage intellect; it identifies the limits of its independent reach.