So this is an underrated aspect of examining the tenents of different religions, as it looks at how their ignorance of modern science and knowledge could/can account for some rather backwards beliefs.
I'll start by pointing out two large cases of where this impacted religious tenents of major religions.
First, we have Judaism's and Islam's prohibition against pork. This seems silly to people today, because it doesn't actually have an real relevence to any supposed moral or ethical dictates outside of itself. However, when we account for the lack of knowledge about Germ Theory and the very real risk of trichinosis in undercooked pork, the prohibition makes more sense.
Would Judaism and Islam still have the prohibition against pork if their founders know safely eating pork was a simple matter of cooking it at hotter temps for longer? Personally, I think they wouldn't
The second is example is the edicts against masterbation.
These edicts, at the time they were written, assumed men had a limited sperm supply, just as women have a limited amount of eggs. There are other arguments against masterbation that have been used to buttress that edicts; arguments about hygiene, about wasting energy/resources used to produce the sperm, and about denial/delay of gratification/satisfaction are all ones I've heard bandied about. But none of that changes the fact that the edicts were written when we were ignorant of the fact men can produce new sperm throughout their life.
So, those are just a couple examples of religious edicts and writings that were done with an ignorance of the actually scientific realities they entailed or involved. There are plenty of others, but I think these were the two easiest examples off the top of my head.
I'll start by pointing out two large cases of where this impacted religious tenents of major religions.
First, we have Judaism's and Islam's prohibition against pork. This seems silly to people today, because it doesn't actually have an real relevence to any supposed moral or ethical dictates outside of itself. However, when we account for the lack of knowledge about Germ Theory and the very real risk of trichinosis in undercooked pork, the prohibition makes more sense.
Would Judaism and Islam still have the prohibition against pork if their founders know safely eating pork was a simple matter of cooking it at hotter temps for longer? Personally, I think they wouldn't
The second is example is the edicts against masterbation.
These edicts, at the time they were written, assumed men had a limited sperm supply, just as women have a limited amount of eggs. There are other arguments against masterbation that have been used to buttress that edicts; arguments about hygiene, about wasting energy/resources used to produce the sperm, and about denial/delay of gratification/satisfaction are all ones I've heard bandied about. But none of that changes the fact that the edicts were written when we were ignorant of the fact men can produce new sperm throughout their life.
So, those are just a couple examples of religious edicts and writings that were done with an ignorance of the actually scientific realities they entailed or involved. There are plenty of others, but I think these were the two easiest examples off the top of my head.