Much as Stile has said, I'm going to ignore the 200 people message to NYT part. As others have said, in this day and age, this would be too possible to fake, and the method leaves a lot lacking as far as "proof" goes. I'm a 6...maybe 6.5 on Dawkins' scale.
However, if we were given some irrefutable evidence that religion A was "closest to the truth," I'd try to figure out what that religion got right and what keeps it from being "truth." Seeing as how this would lead to even more disputes and end up with schisms, I'd probably end up going with the most parsimonious flavor of that religion; as close to a noninterfering deistic type model as is possible given the message.
As for scenario B, if we received irrefutable evidence that no religions are right and science is the closest to truth, then I'd probably yawn and roll back over and sleep for a few more hours before proudly procaliming my logical faculties here and to others, but seeing as I already believe this, it wouldn't impact me much, besides being overjoyed at finally ending this whole debate and letting us all get on with the deciphering and discovering this amazing, natural world we have and extending our sight to space.
™ Version 4.2
