Well it's just as you said; it conflicts with beliefs. It's the main reason we also still have issues with abortion, as an example. There's very few people who aren't religious or strongly religious that are pro-life (not saying it doesn't exist, just it's few and far between).
However, abortion's a different subject, so let me move back on point. Having grown up a Protestant (and I say that because my mother would always switch churches. We went to a Catholic one for a while, then the Salvation Army, then a Baptist church, etc.), I'll use Christianity as my examples, since it's the religion I know the most about.
As you know, the story of human creation in Christianity stems from Adam and Eve; the first two humans. This states that Adam was made from dust (an adaption of Adapa from the early Mesopotamian mythos), and Eve from Adam's ribcage. When we look at this from a literal perspective rather than say, a symbolic perspective, it implies man was directly created from the dust and thus the idea that we previously came from a "lesser" organism (I say lesser because of how some people view animals and humans as different; I'll discuss this later in my post) would imply that this section of the Tanakh/Bible was wrong, which would also imply that the book is fallible in nature.
And even if we did take this from a symbolic perspective, it bears the issue of man is an animal. The Tanakh/Bible states that animals do not have spirits/souls, and again this would either make the book fallible again, or it would at the very least imply we're not as special as we think we are.
However, abortion's a different subject, so let me move back on point. Having grown up a Protestant (and I say that because my mother would always switch churches. We went to a Catholic one for a while, then the Salvation Army, then a Baptist church, etc.), I'll use Christianity as my examples, since it's the religion I know the most about.
As you know, the story of human creation in Christianity stems from Adam and Eve; the first two humans. This states that Adam was made from dust (an adaption of Adapa from the early Mesopotamian mythos), and Eve from Adam's ribcage. When we look at this from a literal perspective rather than say, a symbolic perspective, it implies man was directly created from the dust and thus the idea that we previously came from a "lesser" organism (I say lesser because of how some people view animals and humans as different; I'll discuss this later in my post) would imply that this section of the Tanakh/Bible was wrong, which would also imply that the book is fallible in nature.
And even if we did take this from a symbolic perspective, it bears the issue of man is an animal. The Tanakh/Bible states that animals do not have spirits/souls, and again this would either make the book fallible again, or it would at the very least imply we're not as special as we think we are.