This article was brought to my attention last week. “Why Humanists shouldn’t join in this Catholic-Bashing” by Brenden O’Neill.

I disagree with O’Neill on a number of views:

1) O’Neill suggests that two factors need to be considered in the Church’s sex scandal “the backward cult of victimhood and the dominant ‘new atheist’ prejudice against any institution with strong beliefs.” I can agree with the first observation that the victims, young children would have been terribly confused as to what to do after being raped. Their parents told them to trust priests and that priests are there as representatives of Jesus, whom they have been told is someone they should worship. Does a child tell her parents, another adult, who does she trust? And when she tells someone, do they believe her? And IF they believe her, do they have the guts to questions their own pastor or religious environment enough to raise a stink?

The second suggestion that there is a prejudice against an “institution with strong beliefs” misses the point of atheism. An atheist’s stance on religion is “show me the evidence”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fantastical religions like the Catholic church who believe that they have to eat Jesus’ actual flesh and blood in order to live in a unproven “heaven” after they die comes with no empirical evidence. That is simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fantastical claims, believed strongly but completely unsupported by evidence. There is no prejudice against strong beliefs, there is simply an intolerance for fantastical beliefs with no evidence for their validity.

Continue reading…