If no factual knowledge exists on a subject is it human nature to fill that empty space with myth and faith?

Question

Religious stories like CREATION and the medieval description of a geocentric universe with stars affixed to the outer shell beyond which heaven lies; these are 2 obvious examples. But people place thier faith in the outcome of a future event or a person's endeavors - neither of which have known outcomes. So does faith fill in the empty spaces left by a lack of knowledge?

Answer 1

Only problem with being a smart species...we understand that we can't (or couldn't) understand. All little tribes of people long ago came up with their stories that gave them some sense of understanding, and therefore a better feeling of security. Those early around-the-fire stories eventually became religion as peoples turned into cultures.

Answer 2

Once truth has been rejected humans are willing to believe anything. What makes you so sure people have placed their faith in unknown outcomes? How long do you think it takes to be a Christian before the outcomes are either true or false? Do you think people found it to not bring joy, happiness and peace but stayed anyway? You are correct though. If you don't actively fill your mind with correct information, rubbish will certainly take up the void by default.

Answer 3

Your question assumes that faith cannot be based upon known facts and reason. You seem to "believe" that faith is merely a "leap of faith" without knowledge. The word faith really means to trust someone. I don't tend to trust anyone unless there is a reason, and I don't trust in God without a reason. That reason is based not only upon history, but also observation, experience, and even science.

Here is another point. There was no factual understanding of viruses and bacteria four centuries ago. So they treated disease by bleeding people. They thought this way to get rid disease was factual, but it was wrong.

I think it is a mixed bag. But many times people will stubbornly believe in false "facts" before they will mythologize or spiritualize a problem. Look at how many times science has changed ideas because of new facts!

Answer 4

Undoubtedly. For a recent example, look at the sudden rash of UFO sightings that showed up in the years prior to space exploration--we didn't get it yet, so we made up stories.

This tendency is not, however, necessarily a bad thing. This may be one of the greatest capacities and instincts the human mind has.

Answer 5

You have the wrong definition of the Bible's concept of faith. Please note:
(Hebrews 11:1-2) 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld"

Footnote
“Evident demonstration.” Or, “convincing evidence.” Gr., e′leg·khos; Lat., ar·gu·men′tum. Compare Joh 16:8 ftn.

The Faith in the Bible is similar to what astronomers had when they stated for some time that they knew that there was another planet beyond the eight(when Pluto was considered a planet) this they were able to determine by the affect that Pluto had on the other planets orbits. So then the question I pose to you, was the belief that Pluto was out there an "evident demonstration of realities. though not beheld"?
I would think so?

When you are talking about the blind faith that has been propagated by most religions, and which is actually credulity--that is not the faith in God what he has done and his promises. In actuality the knowledge expressed of, lets say for arguments sake, science, the Bible is very outspoken as to scientific truths, and has never been proven wrong, even though the Bible makes no claim of being a scientific book. Statements like God's use of "Dynamic energy" in creating the universe & maintaining it is very unique, especially to have been recorded 2,500 years ago.(Isaiah 40)

As far as you placing the accounts of Bible creation and list it with stories, & myths you are mistaken, please note.

*** ce chap. 11 p. 151 par. 21 The Amazing Design of Living Things ***

21 Some of the world’s most famous scientists have found it hard to believe. They see intelligence in the natural world. Nobel-prize-winning physicist Robert A. Millikan, although a believer in evolution, did say at a meeting of the American Physical Society: “There’s a Divinity that shapes our ends . . . A purely materialistic philosophy is to me the height of unintelligence. Wise men in all the ages have always seen enough to at least make them reverent.” In his speech he quoted Albert Einstein’s notable words, wherein Einstein said that he did “try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature.” The New York Times, “Materialism Hit by Dr. Millikan,” April 30, 1948, p. 21.


*** ct chap. 6 pp. 101-102 An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It? ***

Noted geologist Wallace Pratt commented: “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis." He also observed that the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time

*** ce chap. 3 p. 34 par. 31 What Does Genesis Say? ***

31 Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

34 The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

Answer 6

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Romans 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God". <*)))><

Answer 7

My dad talks to me all the time about this kind of stuff. He believes that many of us blind ourselves from knowing more, out of fear of the unknown...just like the second answer dude said. I kind of believe him...I mean, yeah I believe in God...I have faith, but at the same time...I understand that in society, one has to see things in a more realistic I guess you can say way in order to understand more and gain knowledge. It's the way the world is, one has to balance their faith and being logical. Using your faith is another way to keep yourself from knowing more...i'm not saying those people are wrong...I respect other's faiths, but that's also what kind of keeps them apart from those who keep a more open-mind.

Answer 8

Personally, I do think it's human nature- only because children do it so easily. Children can pretty much come up with explanations about anything before they get the facts- in fact, they don't always even believe the truth.

Answer 9

I say it would be more general and less anti-theistic to say mankind fills in the gaps in his knowledge with conjecture: hypotheses that we constantly test against empirical evidence and even rationalization, reason, and logic.

It seems religion and the belief in the supernatural grew faster than our sense of logic and reason. One can only hope that logic and reason will eventually prevail.

Answer 10

I don't know, but considering no body else that answers will know either, I bet just reading their responses to a question they have no factual knowledge about will give you a pretty good idea.

Any bets on the religion of the people with the stupidest answers?