>>7
>>10
>I want to see them confront all religion.
The principle reason these societies may be seen as enlightened is that they share the understanding that the scientific method is the only way we have been able to establish a quantifiable objective reality. Science does not confront. It has no need to. When called upon it examines, hypothesizes, experiments, theorizes, studies, and draws conclusions. It's just a tool that we use, the only tool we have that's effectiveness is provable, for solving problems.
Religion and other organizations whose members believe things that can't be proven present problems that have been dealt with as much as we have been able. From Copernicus to Darwin, we amass more and more evidence, incontrovertible to any reasonable person, yet many members of many religions cling to their irrational ignorance. We have built massive libraries. They burn books. We develop technologies. They repackage defunct 2000 year old philosophical arguments (intelligent design=teleological argument) and pretend it's Science. They misinform, dis inform, and prey on ignorance.
We explore and teach.
The big final confrontation between Religion and Science actually happened in the mid to late 19th Century and here's a news flash, Religion lost. Contemporary conflict between religion and Science is a red herring; a distraction that is a result of poor education. Societies take time to change, particularly when expected to sacrifice a tool that has been so useful in controlling those societies. But it's happening. They're catching on.