Personally I've always found this distasteful because in a lot of respects it is wrong.
it implies that the greeco-roman infrastructure would have developed further, which it could not after the Rhine migration. Likewise Christianity had no influence over the learned parts of the world at this time, namely china, Korea and the Umayyad/Abbasid states. (later ottoman and Chinese).
Mind you even if you count in the crusades, plainly speaking the mongols did more to fuck up the arab world then the crazed Germans did. if Christianity disappeared those factors would not change, arguably it would only get worse as there was no unifying factor between the European states, no Christendom.
Though we could have all just fallen to Islam too.
Likewise it ignores the work scientifically of christian monks, who lead to the formation of the earliest forms of the scientific theory.

Someone who enjoys history and is not particularity found of revisionism for sake of ideology.
Which for the sake of accuracy i should revise the above a bit.
1. it is said the mongols were not totally responsible for the Muslim decline scientifically,apparently the golden age was undone by factions within their religion, possible the sejuk turks had a hand in it too, even so the burning of baghdad was major.
2. the revival of European infrastructures was the result of scholastic, which created the middle class and university system.
3. before the enlightenment to largest repression of information was centered around the heliocentric model, and the beloved Galileo was a large prick even turning back to the inquisitorial church and shouting "and yet it moves". Other than that a lot of his imprisonment was due to political instability during the reformation -counter reformation era. before that his book was supported by the Inquisition and pope urban(less sure about this one).