Your chart of selection rules reminded me of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Gödel showed the theorem to his friend Einstein and asked for an opinion. Einstein read it and said it was interesting, but it seemed to lack something.

The taco selection chart appears to have left out a large section of the population including a big part of the scientific community. The followers of Heisenberg are not represented there.

The Heisenberg camp has drawn in about half of the scientific community. The question relates to how scientific opinions are formed, and more directly to how experiments are designed to test a hypothesis.
I really wonder how anyone would design an experiment in strictly scientific terms to make an impartial test of religion.

A lot of arguments have been offered to me in the past 20 years, disguised as scientific data. I find all of them totally inadequate to answer a question about religion. My objections are based on the design of experiments, sample size, and testing methods.

Experimental science has an unwritten standard of 95% probability of truth for claiming a scientific discovery, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Rules change when health, safety, or environmental protection is affected by the outcome. Then the standard is 99.5%, with the burden of proof being placed on the persons who are resisting the claim.

Religion has never born the burden of scientific proof, and never intended to bear it. In every case the claim is made of health, safety, and environmental quality, placing the burden on the opponents under the 99.5% rule.

If you think this is unfair, you may be right. For sure a lot of science is done this way where the question is not about religion, and the researcher places the burden of proof on someone else.

The next time you see a claim about environmental protection , it would be good to remember how the rules are written and who has the burden of proof. ==> A Hint <== The person who is claiming a problem is not expected to prove it.

I remember reading a research report form the early days of ozone depletion. There were 4 experiments plus one control experiment. Now you know before reading the rest of this paragraph, that there will not be enough data to reject a hypothesis at the 99.5% level. So no matter what the experimental data is, the result will be an environmental problem of epic proportions, many research grants, life time careers, the destruction of one group of industries and creation of another, and the replacement of old products with new expensive ones that don't work as well and are dangerous to use without specialized training. The new products can explode if used wrong.

A few weeks later I was listening to a shortwave radio broadcast from Radio Australia, in which the commentator said the radio station had measured propagation data over the South Pole since the 1920's that showed there had been 3 previous episodes of ozone depletion. They were thought to be related to the weather cycles on Earth. Eighty years of continuous measurements are not enough data to satisfy the 99.5% rule.

From the 4 experiments there was ozone depletion at a faster rate than in the control experiment. Unfortunately the control experiment had opposite results to what occurs in the atmosphere., but the conclusion was already established by the sample size. So the experiments were just a formality.

A claim was made that a catalyst had changed the equilibrium of a chemical reaction, in violation of a well established law of chemistry.

Now there is enough data, even at the 99.5% level to show that ozone depletion occurs at higher rates in the dark when the wind picks up more salt than usual from the sea, and the chloride part of the salt gets into the Antarctic zone. There is not enough data to reverse the decisions that were made, or recover the cost of all the changes that were done.

When science starts to tell me about religion, I remember the ozone depletion, and wonder who is bearing the burden of proof, and who is going to pay the cost of it.

When you ask what religion to follow, I would like to know what experiments will be done and how large is the sample size.

In your selection chart a person who is rich but not insane, indifferent to bacon, and undecided about reincarnation will be looking for a second page.