Being religious isn't a weakness, it is an inevitability. A human mind is very limited and not up to the challenge of understanding everything - people have to accept most of their knowledge through social proof. Once social proof is involved religious-looking structures evolve rapidly. It isn't a matter of having or not having cognitive tools, it is that the tools necessary to avoid faith and community can't exist. At least without a level of change that shatters what it means to be human.
That is a bad definition of religion. I will accept a field of study's conclusions in the absence of time myself to investigate. However, if it turns out that field is incorrect (say with the reproducibility crisis), then I won't "have faith" and believe anyways. In other words, belief != faith, and I'm willing to update my beliefs based on new evidence.
