Funny, I've seen the exact opposite reasoning used against Christianity. Some say our theology isn't true because it was too democratic; that our theology was decided by majority vote, largely through the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Then yes, after it's established it's defended, just as scientists defend their ideas in the science forum here.
As far as force and violence sometimes used, I could write a lengthy response about it, but I'll just point out that I'm Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. The difference may not mean anything to you, but coercion was not used in the East. You have to remember that holding different religious views was in some times and places seen as a crime against the State, which makes some sense even from a secular evolutionary view. Before the modern "rule of law", a society was safer and more stable with that kind of cohesion.
The question did come up once in the East, when after Christianity became the religion of the empire, a bishop wrote a letter to other bishops (it's factual history but I don't have the names and details handy, you can Wiki or Google if you care) asking what should be done about non-Christians in his city or region. He asked should it be made a crime? The concensus answer from the bishops about what to do with them was to "love them"; it should not be made a crime. So I'll defend the Catholics a little, but also toot my own Church's horn a little.
Upvote
0