I think the way this works is, new beliefs often require some kind of scaffolding to "fit them in" with what is already believed. Oftentimes, that scaffolding must span gaps in objective knowledge, and when that happens, a "story" is invented and included with the belief. This is the "God of the gaps" phenomenon. It should not have been the purpose
of the belief to erect this poorly supported scaffolding, because that's the "magic bullet" approach to doing science, and the result has no practical application. But the point is, those connections just provide some concreteness, their science is generally lousy and almost always requires replacement when later on good science comes along. This gets confused with the belief itself, when in fact it is a trivial component of the belief.
People should be willing to "swap in" scientific explanations for objectively testable components of that scaffolding, it really doesn't affect the beliefs in any significant way, it just provides a more reliable scaffolding to make those connections. Unfortunately, many people have very little flexibiliity in this regard.