Originally posted by Ghosthead
Not totally wrong, but I would argue you are edging towards simplification to imagine that before modern science, there was not a rich dialogue going on within theologians, about the importance of non-rational, and rationally unprovable, revelation. (Revelation and personal spirituality and faith in ideas that you cannot reason your way towards were not taken to be something that was unnecessary in the face of sufficient reason.)
The idea of faith as belief in revelation and personal experience of spirituality that overrides the rational is not ersatz modern development to cope with science; people in the past well before modern science were well aware that revelation and spirituality was radically at odds with rational experience, and they developed ideas around this which have long are part of religious faith.
(I'm struggling a little to not crudely represent this but it feels like in the raw form your have presented it you may have the risk of getting towards some kind of "Conflict Thesis" in which Christian or Abrahamic religion, after the birth of modern science, is seen as allied to a kind of force against scientific "progress", and the idea of "faith" - belief in living power of revelation and personal spiritual experience over the rational - is close to a kind of willful ignorance.)
Yeah, sorry, that was probably more reductive than is useful in the long term.