Demonstrably and historically incorrect. Periods in history with the greatest Humanism also saw the greatest periods of scientific advancement. You can, in fact, even see this demonstrated during the Medieval Era as it correlates to art. Art during this period was decidedly iconic, as literal depictions of things (human, still life, landscape and architecture alike) were considered of the earthly and not regarded as important as the celestial (the after life). With the advancement of the Renaissance saw a greater focus on Humanism, the idea that literal depictions of the world were important, beautiful and perhaps even necessary. This is repeated in Classical periods in Greek and Roman civilization: as their religion ebbed and flowed, so too was this mirrored in the evolution of iconic art toward more literal (humanist) representations, and these too heralded the most significant advances in technology. Finally, the Age of Enlightenment was unique in it proposed the notion that the scientific discipline must be approached independently of faith. Since then, scientific advancement has progressed on a level that is almost exponential.
Incorrect: we are literally, biologically wired to recognize patterns and connections that could lead one to believe in a God. That atheists, agnostics, and philosophies that aren't especially theological exist are proof that people will take those patterns to arrive at conclusions or believe systems that aren't related to a god at all. You're incorrectly assuming that your experiences are natural and universal, which is a dangerously egocentristic model to base your conclusions on.
Perhaps.
