Caveman Logic

As one who also does alot of (private) moaning about religion, I have to say it unfortunately does not stop at the idea that religion "has given us" great art. As a minor poet and painter myself, I can sometimes attest to-what I may unabashadly call here-the 'spiritual dynamic' when inspiration mingles with hard work and the result is a piece of art you hope will stand the test of time. What I would argue against, if I haven't made it clear in my first sentence, is the notion that it (religion) has been the very engine of a good deal of the art we know.
As has been pointed out before, it is almost impossible to know if someone like Michelangelo or Shakespeare were unbelievers simply because they lived in an era where if they decided to admit to being unbelievers, it would most certainly have resulted in swift death (My two examples I couldn't prove either way so easily but if one took someone like L. DaVinci, then a much more promising hypothetical theory would likely be forthcoming).
So, if we could somehow re-generate Michelangelo and he were to tell us, in the light of what we know today, that he was always an unbeliever, then we could only conclude that what religion gave him was MATERIAL. If we could conclude that inspiration came from him alone, a mystical, dare I say religious quality, and not any faith, we might be hard-pressed to say it came from religion. It came from the man.
There's no doubt that if we could ask Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Natural History Museum we would most likely get something spectacular. At the same time, I would hate to hear someone like Richard Dawkins say that science is "giving us" great art. Having said this, it would also not even be worthwhile pointing out ahteist artist's like Korsakov or the poet Phillip Larkin who have also done some fantastic things.
I do get the jist of your great article and I agree with the line that even "delusions can lead to wonderful art". Of course, here, we only have to go as far as Monsieur Van Gogh. But good art is itself a lie albeit, a beautiful one which speaks to a truth beyond it's inspiration. The "depth of conviction", I believe, is that unsayable quality that drives a person to create. This overrides anything else.
Thanks for a great article!

I think it's more than "depth of conviction" that drives us to create. I hold a great depth of conviction in biological science, but I'm not going to be writing love songs to Darwin any time soon. I've written lots of songs and even recorded some of them over the years. But never about Darwin or B.F. Skinner, an earlier hero. But I sure have written songs about the women I've loved, and even some pets I've loved.

And that's the key: Love. Passion. If I loved God or Jesus, I'd probably knock off a few ditties for them as well. And I'd have lots of company. Once love and passion get involved, whether they're directed at flesh and blood creatures of our world, or supernatural figures in some other, you're likely to do your share of creating - assuming you have the skills to do so. And it's why we have religion to thank for some fine art and music. THAT more than anything was the point of my original blog.