Reading through medieval Old and Middle English, it seems like there was never a lack of cultural development, at least in the British Isles, and many great medieval philosophers in Europe were Christian. I understand the Catholic Church was opposed to scientific discovery that contradicted orthodoxy, but it seems like their opposition never halted progress. It seems to me that the continued worship of incorrect Aristotelian ideas, such as a geocentric universe, was more of a stunting factor. Of course, the Church backed those beliefs, but again, that didn’t stop those later in history from questioning them.
Furthermore, one of the only reasons we have some great Greco-Roman works is because of Christian monasteries, and medieval Arabic societies were killing it in science and mathematics, with Islam being extremely prevalent in those societies. Muslim cultural and scientific success leads me to believe you cannot blame Christianity for Europe’s problems, but rather, the fall of the Roman Empire was so monumental in European societies that it took a while to put the pieces back together.
tl;dr: how much blame can be placed on Christianity for Europe’s post-Roman Empire woes?
No and it's really not that modern of an interpretation of history, Gibbon who was writing back in the 19th century blamed the fall of the Roman empire on christianity. The term 'dark ages' itself was create during the renaissance. It resides solely in the realm of popular history and isn't seriously considered by most historians
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98ecga/why_did_the_dark_agesmiddle_ages_come_to_be/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/235w3l/why_are_the_european_dark_ages_considered_a/
To add a bit to the response in the second link that sums it up really nicely, one of the culprits is the misconception that 'Fall of Rome' or 'Fall of Roman Empire' in 476 AD (neither name is correct, as Western Roman Empire was only a half of the Empire and Rome wasn't even the capital of the Western Empire in late 5th century) was an apocalyptic event that abruptly ended the 'ancient civilisation'. This is, of course, completely false, as 'the fall of Western Roman Empire' was a process that became evident during a Crisis of the Third Century and lasted for almost two hundred years. It is a very common misconception that culture and science was developing more or less uniformly during 'ancient times' and then plummeted in 'Middle Ages', while the opposite is true - it fell into stagnation in the early centuries of the common era and then fell into decline when the Western Empire crumbled roughly to the level typical to the 'barbarians' and then it began to improve again, albeit at slower pace.
Additionally, what is rarely mentioned, partly because of the fact that the author of the idea of 'Dark Ages' was a Florentine, the commonly perceived 'Medieval Europe' is roughly twice as big as the continental part of the Roman Empire. In the lands north of Danube and east of Rhine (most of Germany, entire Poland, Russia, Bohemia, Hungary and Scandinavia - all of the countries/areas being major medieval powers) the Roman civilisation never collapsed because it never existed there in the first place. In other words, the fall of Western Roman Empire bore little to no bad consequences to that areas but it even actually marks the moment when they started a rapid development, at least partially because of contacts with Christian areas that preserved the Graeco-Roman heritage and knowledge and later introduced it in the northeastern Europe.
Summing the above, the fall of Roman Empire basically did not influence the cultural and scientific development of the northwestern Europe and if anything, it brought the western Europe roughly to the similar level, allowing Gauls, Germans, Slavs, Angles and Scandinavians to develop in more or less uniform manner, so that when the northwestern countries adopted Christianity in 10th/11th century, there was little to no 'culture shock' and trends in social policies, technology and culture were quickly adopted and further developed.
The idea that 'Church stunted scientific progress' is also a product of post-medieval times, as the most famous objections against new scientific discoveries occurred in 16th and 17th century, as a result of the counter-Reformation dogmatic movement within the Church what, as should be obvious, bears no relevance to the traditionally understood Middle Ages (5th-15th century). It is a common consensus among the historian, that the Church in the Middle Ages, especially in the earlier part of this period, being a relatively unified organisation composed of largely literate people forming an intricate network of cells around Europe was single-handedly able to preserve, collect and disseminate ancient knowledge both in the former Western Roman Empire and across Europe, leading to Carolingian Renaissance and later, when contacts with the Eastern Roman Empire and Muslim World has developed, also to the Renaissance of the 12th Century. It is assumed that the Italian Renaissance would have been impossible if the ancient texts haven't been copied and distributed at that scale.