The point you miss is that consensus in science results from assessed reliability, not always ,certainly, but generally. Even so, consensus on very reliable theories can be overturned as has happened. That doesn't mean the consensus was unwarranted but it does (or should) put paid to claims of knowable truth.
By contrast, religion (and philosophy) have no means of assessing the reliability of their "theories." Modern, adult people should not take such things seriously as statements of fact about the world, consensus or not, until some such method is available.
Does consensus in history count in your scenario? If you follow the discussion between myself and JS, he seems to be calling some very authoritative historians “psychotic”.
Sigh, I am having to recover the same ground. You are simply asserting something I have already demonstrated to be fallacious.
Alas, how were you able to confirm that there is never such a reliable method? Is the technique you used more reliable in nature then that used in philosophy?
Realistically any doctrine in theology or idea in philosophy needs to conform to "common sense", or it is in danger of being overturned, in time. The very reliability of science is based soley on "common sense", and the ongoing effective application of science as well.
If all of philosophy can produce nothing reliable, then we must reject science as well, for it came from philosophy.