That's the point -- as I see it, it has absolutely no role in our existential situation. Whether we are under dome on a disk who knows where or whether the whole universe as described by (modern) science is but a dream, and so on and so forth, the only thing we can and do know 100% is that we are and know it. That's the absolute and it's obviously completely knowable. So yeah, no agnosticism here either.

All of the rest is relative and either cannot be known for sure (only to some varying degree of possibility) or is outright unknowable (e.g. the hows and whys of the very moment of birth of universe and similar). So, I have no particular need to fret about it -- either my assumptions about the relative are correct and then the methods I use to deal with it will work, or the methods fail which means that I was either sloppy in executing them or my assumptions were wrong, so I'm basically forced to update them, if I don't want to futilely bang my head against the wall. Sometime even literally. In any case, it's always a valuable lesson. Simple as that.

And suffice to say, science (i.e. what you would probably call scientific dogma) served me well (heck, I'm writing this on a computer) and mostly aligns quite nicely with what I can see. And that's, with regard to the relative, enough for me.