>That is a system of control
Since we're talking hypotheticals:
All religions, churches, denominations, and sects attempt to bridge the gap between the perceivable known and the unknown possible. The difference between the scientific approach and the faith-based one is the scientific one admits that the unknown is such that the assumption of a final "source" is antithetical to real knowledge, and the faith-based makes the assumption beforehand with discovery of knowledge being attributed to the assumption's direction and guidance; so long as you are properly focused on it. This could lead to an interesting discussion (tangent) of "multiple paths, same destination", but that's not the point to address your post with, nor does it even really scratch the surface in analyzing how these institutions were used to control the populace to begin with.
Without having someone "in the know" to give you the answers, you'd have to start with an assumption the control mechanism were put in place out of concern over one of a few things; perhaps chiefly:
-
Humanity would outright reject any and all forms of authoritarianism and control - ultimately able to be free and decide their own course (not in the best interest of a small group wishing to maintain a perch above their fellow man, woman, and child).
-
#1 above, plus there might just be utter chaos for a while as humanity nearly causes itself to become extinct from the sudden realization that they've been led astray their entire lives and the subsequent revolt would lead to a disastrous outcome.
So the concerns behind giving everyone in the world the truth right off, without some sort of concept to bridge the morality gap out of a clearer understanding of purposeful existence over nihilistic, selfish endeavors, would likely lead to a chaotic and ruinous outcome. It would be a higher goal to find a way to focus deontological and consequentialist approaches to ensure a conceptual understanding a morality is passed on. Unfortunately, the assumption is that people will embrace the "blackpill", if you will, and do as they wish (consequences be damned). It almost seems as though there are some that are hellbent on retaining at least some portions of the old institutions because they lack faith that humanity might be able to find its own way without some "divine inspiration" (hellfire and brimstone) to keep the less observant in check. Others in that same group might think that the fath-based perspective is self-evident and never let go of it. But you're going to have others push against this and range from "I understand why you think that way and it's fine" to "You're an idiot. Why do you hold on to these proven false belief systems?".
I think the best approach, or at least the most sincere and compassionate one, is to constantly remind yourself that at any time there could be something observed in your own life's path that affirms or changes your position on the scientific vs faith-based stance, and keep an open mind to keep the conversation open. Once you decide to be immovable on something, conversation stops and growth for everyone is stunted. Being cordial is key, debate is necessary, and defending each others' right to hold either/any perspective on the matter at any given point in time is a central concept to a successful, cooperative path forward for society.
Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, right?