Once again, I'm making a comment without having followed the thread, always a risky thing to do. Still, reading only your last post, it we have two propositions that can't ever be falsified, why bother to make a choice? Is it unreasonable to withhold judgment as to both?
IMHO, it is unreasonable, Patrick. Because this would seem to imply the denial of oneself. For my best guess is that a human being will find one or the other more in accord with his own knowledge and understanding of his experience, his existence in the world. Is it reasonable to deny that we know in this way, or what we know in this way? The act of choosing constitutes the first step in self-knowledge, which in turn is the beginning of wisdom....
Further, the quality of one's life finds expression in acts which inevitably reflect our "preference" of worldview. To take something into one's mind seems to have the consequence of taking something into one's life, which probably sounds pretty corny. But it's true all the same.... We might as well acknowledge to ourselves "where we're coming from."
Aristotle said all men by nature desire to know. So it seems to me unreasonable for a "natural man" to choose not to know, not to acknowledge to himself what he knows.
When he knows what he knows, maybe he can begin to appreciate how vastly much he does not know.... This seems to be the most valuable knowledge we can have. If we're convinced we already know everything, we'd have no reason to continue our search for knowledge and understanding. "Human progress" thus would probably be stopped dead in its tracks.
FWIW.