Holy Cats., but this is all over the place.
"Philosophically, we can both accept that absolute knowledge exists but is inaccessible to us or we can reject knowledge entirely." Or we can accept a completely different knowledge than those you say we are restricted to.
You seem to be infected with the "Plato Perfection Meme plague", one of the worst there is for smart people. Plato sought perfection in his "perfect forms". It's a neurosis common to Western thinking, transmitted by Aristotle to the Catholic Church and why the Medieval Catholic God Concept (MCGC) is so weird and unusual. The PERFECT ALL GOD, all pervasive, all knowing all forgiving and all just ... no matter how contradictory that is. It's why the Catholic God is so unique, because none of the others are such psychologically weird products. It's why they asked questions like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" or "can God make a rock so large that God cannot move it". Engineers have learned to not let perfection be the enemy of good enough. Nature operates the same way. Maybe that's how the universe works instead of absolutes. Look it up. "Perfect" is usually defined as "divine". Look up "divine" and it is "perfect". That whole thought process is just as neurotic as my friend that wants to replace humans with machines because humans are imperfect.
"All these are relative. They are products of evolution".
Evolution is not relative. It is absolutely about survival. If you quit with insisting morality and belief are either mystical, absolute or arbitrary, you might figure out that they are products of evolution. All philosophies providing a descriprion of morality have problems... or there would be consensus, which there is not. If you instead say that moralities are survival systems, it all works. There are multiple ways to survive. They are not arbitrary. They are not mystical. They are not absolute. They are balances like everything in nature. Best of all, just to mess everything up, being products of evolution with its large component of chance, they can't always be riddled out using logic and reason, the favorite tools of philsopoher types. Again, Plato distorts that discussion because culturally, coming from him again, we have always considered inherent knowledge to come from a soul. Well, evolution and genetics weren't things so no one could attribute it to instincts. Besides, the Church said humans have no instincts because thet would imply that huamns are animals rather than divine. Besides, riddling out instincts, my thing, is maddeningly difficult.
Anyway, there is some nice sophisticated thinking in this article, but I have to think you are coming from many misleading cultural assumptions. Avoiding those makes things far simpler and more organizable.
... And the story about God I found, that's fun too.
