Its like when the teachers tell them how to write a program and they don't check the documentation and ask stupid questions and then they have problems later in their programs and a lot of them never become programmers
my methaphor was prettier
"Do you feel you have it? Would you say it is human nature?"
Sure, and I would definitely say it is a part of human nature. Think of the idea of religion itself—clear-cut closure; what to believe, how to live, and how to come to terms with death. The oldest known religions put into writing that we have discovered were passed down by oral tradition, and burial sites with religious relics dating well before written language was conceived have been uncovered.
To my knowledge, there is no known culture that has not had supernatural explanations for existence. There are the Pirahã who do not believe in any higher beings, but still believe in spirits and wear ornamentation to ward them off.
"Do you agree that faith and reason can be compatible in this sense?"
I do not think faith and reason are compatible, because faith (in the religious sense) implies belief in the absence of evidence. Now many across the globe have claimed they have been rewarded by their deities for pious behavior, or experienced the supernatural personally. But consider how many different deities there are. The only way one can make reason out of the cause-and-effect these people see from their behaviors, is to say there are in fact many different creators of the universe that operate for those who would choose to believe in them, or some higher being(s) that reward anyone who adheres to religions. Occam's Razor is not always true, but is the most reasonable method for examining that issue.
As for Descartes who was mentioned, his way of reconciling faith and reason led to his conception of dualism. For anyone not familiar, dualism is basically the idea that one is at the same time a physical and metaphysical entity (specifically a soul, according to Descartes). It begs the question, when one is lobotomized, is their soul lobotomized as well? Or simply unable to function as it was meant to because there is no longer a one-to-one correspondence between the physical and metaphysical being? No definitive answer can be given, but again, applying Occam's Razor to the conundrum is the most reasonable thing to do.
Interesting lines at the end of your quote,"What do you think about this tendency we have toward "closure"? Do you think, as Shorto suggests, "that the world is too wild for our strategies to contain it?" Humans are born problem-solvers, which is how we've come to be the dominant animal on this planet despite our comparative measly figures in the Savanna terrain. We've evolved from hunted to hunters by logic. I would not say "the world is too wild for our strategies to contain it," but rather, humans by design seek to impose structure upon reality, as that is our innate survival mechanism. Or, that is at least what reason informs us.
"Do you agree that a need for closure is what makes humans inquisitive?"
No. My explanation for that answer is within my paragraph before this one.
"Is it mathematically possible to ever become certain of the external world?"
No. As Schopenhauer once wrote, "The Universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too." While he was using this as a metaphor, for all we know, he could have been right. How could we know? We can exercise deduction and induction, but in the end, objectivity is impossible. Even if you died you went to Heaven, how could you know you were not in a dream?
"Understanding/certainty of course does not necessarily mean an ability to control it.
Do you think it is possible to be always a step behind the world, but able to track its footsteps?"
Sure. Not the greatest example, but people on death row come to mind.