That definition wouldn’t apply to science as an enterprise as there shouldn’t be “complete trust” in any given scientific model, theory, or finding. That would be reflective of the individual dogma of the scientist not of science as a whole. However, unlike religion, science is inherently self correcting, it’s limitations are seen as strengths as we continuously find new findings. When has major religion changed in the face of new evidence? That’s the thing it doesn’t. Religion doesn’t accept any inherent limitations of its doctrine, it doesn’t put its doctrine to the test via experimentation, and it doesn’t revise its doctrine in the face of new evidence. There is no norm of skepticism within religion, being a religious person amounts to believing in something despite evidence. But I do agree with one thing religions aren’t different. They make up similar myths to explain away the uncertainty science couldn’t at the time and still can’t. It unnecessarily fills in the gaps with a myth yet to be correct. Just some food for thought.