While the definition leaves room for why someone has complete trust, definition 2 shows that in a religious sense of the word there is no proof needed.

Looking up the actual definition you get the following:

Cambridge dictionary

1. Great trust or confidence in something or someone

2. Strong belief in God or a particular religion

American Heritage

1a. Belief in God or in a set of religious doctrines.

2. Confident or unquestioning belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Collins

1. Strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence.

5. Complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc.

Oxford

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something

2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Apparently, there is some disagreement as to whether proof is required or not, so it cannot be taken as a given that proof or evidence is not a necessary component of religious faith.

In definition 1, this doesn’t apply to science, because peer review is exactly NOT complete trust in someone else.

Other scientists do not have complete trust in other scientists discoveries, but that does not mean that science as a whole is not trusted by non-scientists. If you didn’t have complete trust in science would you ever get on an airplane or on a roller coaster?

But to have complete trust in someone or something means that you trust them even when presented with evidence of the contrary, which is just trusting something because you want to.

There’s nothing in any of the definitions either you or I provided that suggests complete trust means you trust them even when presented with evidence of the contrary.

Faith comes into everything. The reason it comes into being is because we cannot see into someone’s mind nor see the future. On what basis does anyone have for believing that gravity will work tomorrow the same as it does today? You can’t see into the future. You don’t KNOW that it will, so you just take it on faith that it’s going to act in the same manner as it always has. You don’t KNOW that the bank isn’t going to make off with all your money, so you take it on faith. A faith backed by trust. If you didn’t trust them would you really give them your money?

Is there irrational faith without any basis for believing it or trusting it to be true? Yes, that’s what the article is all about, but faith in and of itself, is not irrational or without evidence. That is my take on faith.