We can't see electrons but we know they're there by evidence which leads us to the logical conclusion. I can't see God, but I know he's there, and like electrons, I see the effects of his presence everday,in thunderstorms, when you walk across a carpet and touch a doorknob, etc. :)
My failure to convey that is by no means failure of him to exist and play an active role. I will persevere to be more effective. :)
It(the Universe) can be explained independent of God, though.Perhaps, to varying degrees of satisfaction. Just as the fact that 'religion' doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean it can't. May reflect, again, on shortcomings of human thought capacity/tools,concept delivery, etc.
"Religion used to teach that the Earth was the center of the universe." Yeah, and I can't explain the thought processes of others. I think they mistook where it said 'God created the earth' as if that was ALL he created, etc.
As for other things popular for 'religion' to spout, I think it essential all people be aware that if God's too big to be pigeonholed by any definitions or explanations, then he was equally capable of creating the evolutionary process which would govern the development of his creations. Or NOT. Or creation AND evolution. I don't know who/what said God wouldn't allow his creations to be destroyed. Knowing our curiosity and penchant for passionate studies, he may have made the dinosaurs so we'd have something to dig up and study later. How disappointing would it be to dig and find nothing whatsoever?
I don't know that science proved the 6 day creation story wrong or can accurately judge the age of some stuff, given the discrepancies in testing methods. But the whole point is to keep looking and not give up. Also, is it constructive to allow ourselves to get caught up in all the myriad pronouncements of church OR science on MANY matters? I'm not saying don't examine, I mean more in the sense of 'Here I am, which paths are probably going to be more helpful in discovery, reading what's available, listening to my heart, and/or trying to figure out what and why old churches claimed?"
Not sure why you described it as 'more important', the roots of my faith. But as to your question: I don't base my faith on the actions of old, or new, churches. It was an epiphany to me in the language directed at me which answered my deepest questions and hasn't stopped at all for 10 years now. AFTER I came to believe THEN I took an interest in the Bible for more direct 'teachings'.
Re: Christians past who've been disproven:a) It's common knowledge folks were croaking from drinking out of pewter stuff or whathaveyou, mad hatters getting that way from mercury fumes blocking wool hats, etc etc ad nauseum. I actually find it rather amazing that, given the chemical dysfunctions of those earlier years that ANYthing survived at all, much less hope! haha
"Was their faith false?" If you mean 'was it false for them to believe in God who sent a human son to pay with his life', no, their faith was not false. There was, and will be, a great deal of speculation on how/where biblical words jive with scientific measurements and discoveries. I figure believers and non-believers are on equal ground in our cumulative sojourn to understand who we are and why. And why is it that when scientists go through they're piles of data and can't come up with it they don't undergo the same fire they put under believers?
Is my own faith false? I don't think so. And I'm willing to wager my eternity on it. That was not the case BEFORE the epiphany, however. And it probably shouldn't matter to anyone else if it was 'false'. It keeps me off the streets! haha Sadly for YOU, it doesn't keep me off the FORUMS. :)