OP is giving the correct answer for the Catholic worldview.
You and the Catholic Church are operating under completely different axioms, so there's no point in responding to someone's explanation of Catholic axioms by just repeating your own axioms more forcefully.
I think it's a more interesting approach to disregard the metaphysical claims, which are inherently unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant to life in this universe, and look at religious texts as constitutions governing human behavior and morality. The metaphysical bits are just a side note to help sell that social contract and give it a theoretical enforcement mechanism.
In other words, the relevant question isn't how some pastor "knows" that God says to do XYZ. Obviously they don't. The relevant question is whether and to what extent there's value to be extracted from the collective wisdom of generations of members of an institution whose history stretches back thousands of years.
Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans. If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone. I think it makes more sense to just accept a religion and its culture and teachings for what they are, and try to be the best person you can be without worrying about how the guy controlling the simulation we live in may choose to mete out rewards and punishments.
> Whether or not a literal god may have been involved at any point is irrelevant. Right now, we're very far removed from any such claimed involvement, looking at documents that have been written, cherry-picked, translated, rewritten, and reinterpreted many times by many different fallible humans.
This is only true from the Protestant Sola Scriptura perspective. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold that God still directs the Church through the Holy Spirit, which makes the documents that you identify only some elements of that direction—an output of the authority granted to the Church—not its final form. So, no, it's not accurate to say that we are far removed from any claims of direct involvement from Deity—several branches of Christianity hold that He is still actively involved.
> If the only meaning someone sees in religious guidance is its connection to a literal physical deity, they're in for an exercise in frustration from what is at best the world's longest game of telephone.
Again, it's not a long game of telephone if God is actually still directing the Church today. If you accept that He guides leadership right now through the Pope and the Bishops, which is the stance articulated by OP, you're at most a few steps removed from His regular guidance.
Which gets back to my original point, which is that this really all comes down to which axioms you want to accept. All religion is unfalsifiable, as you observe, but falsifiability cuts both ways and you can't logic your way out of that to logically conclude the absence or irrelevance of a God. What you can do is decide which axioms you're going to start from and work from there.
That's fair. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that the Pope and every previous Pope is and was a true agent of God (despite how historical issues around papal succession and legitimacy may complicate that story), and there's no way to logic your way into an answer on that one way or another.
Nevertheless, whether or not someone's particular doctrine agrees with the "long game of telephone" stance, I would suggest that a mindset which finds meaning in the teachings and institutions of one's religion independent of their divinity is a more straightforward path to prosocial behavior and inner peace. The idea that anyone should ever suffer genuine anguish or question their personal morals based on doubts of their assumptions about the metaphysical nature of the universe just seems alien and like a non sequitur to me, but from what I understand it's a very real struggle for some people.
This is also true from a Catholic point of view (I am).
At the very least, that’s debatable or less absolute than that.
Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy… not sure you would be sane to want to follow such a “peculiar” guidance.
> Because evidence (schisms, actual errors from the Church institution throughout time, not the least sex scandals we are not done with yet) shows that if God was actively directing the Church in the past and today, oh boy…
Except all the scandals and anti-Popes are empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. Despite all that the teachings of the Church are fundamentally unchanged. I can read St Justin Martyr and recognize the teaching of the Eucharist from the second century that itself is in continuity with John 6. Go through all Catholic teachings and you’ll find continuity from the beginning despite all the forces that wanted to change it for thousands of years.
The religion founded by the man betrayed by His own Apostle and then disowned or abandoned by the rest, executed brutally and sadistically by the Romans, that religion went on to conquer the Roman world within a few centuries and then make its way through the whole world for thousands of years. Why? Because Jesus rose from the dead and against His Church the gates of hell won’t prevail.
I don’t buy this so much as this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern, wherever it is (“yeah it’s bad, but there’s a Plan behind all this” - very similar to how Qanon tried to operate).
You see continuity and consistence while others see that it’s not only the religion that conquered the Roman world, but the Roman Empire that also conquered the religion to secure its existence.
So much of the Church extension starting from the XIth century, comes, shouts even, more from its Roman heritage than from its Christian’s (one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct).
But “we” take it for some divine inspiration and spiritual guidance while it’s merely equivalent to humans laws: contextual, biased and open to critique and upgrades down the line.
What’s remarkable is the totally opposed, considerations we can have on the Church (and it seems, the concepts of hell & heaven), while having the same fidelity to the Christ’s teaching (which, in the end, matters most), and both seeing how the institution both sabotages and helps its mission.
> one thread being that it mixed temporal and spiritual concerns instead of making them obviously distinct
That's really, really, not something Christianity gained from Rome. Judaism is, and always has been, a religion of the practical world. It prescripts how to live, from the very beginning. The Torah is very concerned with the answering of how to live, as well as the why to live that way.
Good point, yes, Christianity came with its own judaic heritage.
But without the centralised, territorial organization, administrative structures, cultural tools (especially Latin) and normative legal framework from Rome, the Church wouldn't have had the means to influence consistently so much the society of its time and the ability to support and control a spread that extensive through Europe and further.
By choosing Christianity, Constantin found a way for the Empire to survive into something different. And Christianity gained a tremendous powerhouse to use and adapt for its own growth.
And my point is that this hybrid huge "thing" is more driven today by its institutional heritage than spiritual's (otherwise, it would act vehemently more about its power abuses, sexual abuses, and terrible understanding of marital life, if only for pastoral care). And that's because it's much more a man-made (and male-made) organisation rather than one guided by God.
> this is the perfect excuse for evil in humanity to continue to govern
Historical facts, like the Church and her teaching being invincible to the attacks against her over the millennia, has no relation to what ought to happen. Facts are facts not excuses and attempting to bring in that into the issue is a non-sequitur.
1/ I don't see how the Church's teachings have been "invincible" over millennia. It evolved, if only by synods, that debated and settled dogmas (and what was true at one point, became not at some later one... so go figure). And outside of its sphere of influence, it's been shown (not always, but enough to question its whole authority) to be wrong or irrelevant - sexual and power abuse scandals are the most prominent and recent fruits of evil I can quote.
2/ claiming that God's is behind you, without any relevant and factual proof of it (and any verifiable claim from God saying that you indeed are acting in His Name), is the perfect excuse to do whatever you want, as no one would think of critiquing you. "Tradition" is of no help either here. That's the Achille's heel of hierarchical religions.
I think this is a bad direction to argue from. Science is humans all the way down and we want to have confidence in the scientific process. That is, it is fundamental to our understanding of science that we can trust the collective output of numerous humans working together to uncover "Truth".
You wouldn't accept the counter argument: "Science is wrong because it is the work of humans; religion is right because it is the word of God".
We have to assume, no matter what side of the argument we take, that humans are at least in principle capable of discerning "Truth". We should focus on how humans discern truth rather than on whether or not they can.
A major problem it seems is that people get caught up and forget that philosophy can exist without religion can just get trapped in the arguments religious philosophy presents.
