Christianity has at times been most destructive to art. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire there immediately followed an orgy of destruction as pagan temples, statuary and other artifacts were destroyed by rampaging Christian mobs encouraged by the Roman authorities. A similar destructive orgy followed in the Reformation as Catholic churches were stripped bare of statuary, stained windows and other art created in the Catholic milieu. Not only art but literature was banned. After Gutenberg introduced the printing the Catholic Church brought out the index which was a list of banned books. Not only art but science was opposed by Christianity. Hypatia, a brilliant mathematician and astronomer, was slaughtered by Christian monks. Servetus who doubted the Trinity but was a brilliant anatomist and scientist was burned at the stake in Calvin's Geneva. Bruno who thought that there were many solar systems was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome.

Christianity has been an enemy of art, literature and science. It was Christianity that made the Dark Ages dark.

Dear Danielle,

I was reacting to Sells' ridiculous statement that there would no art without Christianity.

In music the sublime Bach and a host of others were subsidised or supported by various Christian groups. The Catholic church supported magnificent Renaissance art. The Eastern Orthodox Church has monumental liturgical music.

The Christian enmity to science, literature and art has not been consistent. The King James Bible remains a literary achievement. Many of the British naturalists were clergy.

However, since Christianity was in large part responsible for the Dark Ages it is my opinion that the artistic output in western society would have been much greater without Christianity.

I regard the adoption by the Roman Empire of Christianity as the official religion as one of the tragedies that has befallen humanity.

David is quite cross about Christianity, pathologically so. Was he abused by a priest?

Dear david f,

You could be well right in much of what you write ...

You mention prehistoric art in the Altamira caves; indeed magnificent.

Archaeologists/prehistorians believe that all art at these periods was compelled by either magical or religious motives. Unfortunately, I can't recall a particular compelling study I could have cited (my ageing brain). Possibly, such impetus influenced subsequent eras in art.

Whilst the art of Rome became securalised it owed much to the idealism of the Greek. Emperors were certainly 'deified' in sculptural portraits.

I am not sure whether historians apply the term Dark Ages now. It was so described due to lack of written records and literature. Also Francesco Petrarca used this term in relation to Late Latin literature, which he obviously didn't like.

Some historians posit the fall of Rome was due to the lead in the water pipes... ; others believe there was a plague of some sort ...

Maybe 'spirit' or 'mystery,' neither necessarily in the sense of religious nor spiritual, is required in art. That 'something' that ignites a spark between the artist/art and the viewer. It seems that much contemporary art lacks this. An ennui of the spirit? Some artists are having an exciting collaboration with the scientific world. Why not? Science seeks to reveal the ultimate mysteries to us.

Perhaps this is our 21st century version of the 'magical or religious motive' ...

http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Education/Programs/SCIENCE-ART/CSIRO-and-the-arts.aspx

Dear Sells,

I have not been abused by a priest and am not a Christian. However, I try to evaluate what happened in history. All of the incidents I mentioned in connection with Christianity happened. Rather than speculating on my pathology it might be useful to ask why Christianity has a history of violence and intolerance while labelling Jesus the Prince of Peace and itself a religion of peace. Have you ever wondered or do you just ignore the horrible record?

I question all belief in the supernatural and find flaws in all religions that I know of. The idea of a Chosen People and a real estate dealer God in Judaism are harmful nonsense. The detachment advocated in Buddhism has led to atrocity. One can see the phenomenal world as not important. The Japanese officer corps in WW2, a violent group of men, were in general Buddhists. They could accept the violence in such incidents as the Rape of Nanking as occurring in the phenomenal world and therefore not important. The Sri Lankan Buddhist clergy have promoted violence against non-Buddhists. The caste system in Hinduism has held people in bondage.

However, in my view, the two most harmful religions are Christianity and Islam. That is because they are missionary religions. They push their belief systems on others. Of the two Christianity has a worse cumulative, historical record of violence in spreading the faith.

Some Christians have confronted the horrible record and have tried or are trying to modify Christianity so as to eliminate the worst aspects. Pope John XXIII, Bishop John Shelby Spong and Basilea Schlink are three examples. There are Christians I greatly admire as opposing evil against great odds. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Brown and William Wilberforce are three examples of that.

You are not among those Christians. Your statement, “…we would have no art in the West if it were not for Christianity.” was a combination of unjustified triumphalism and abysmal ignorance. There are many thoughtful Christians who realise both their own fallibility and the fallibility of their faith, but you are not among them.

My question, David, is why you are so fixated on Christianity, why are you not cross about the millions who died under the atheistic regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot?