That is because there is no one right answer for these things. They are non-deterministicCould it possibly be that they only appear non-deterministic because you don't have all the knowledge to make that judgment? You yourself have admitted that science provides very little insight on these topics. Imagine everyone was looking at a massive sheet of connect-the-dots, but each of us (in our limited knowledge and capacity) could only perceive a unique subset of the dots on the sheet. We most certainly would connect the dots and arrive at unique pictures, some more similar than others. Science is just one of many systems for connecting those dots.
So things would certainly appear relative because of the variance in pictures, but that fails to acknowledge that there's still a right answer. There's still a big picture for the one who can perceive all the dots (and know) everything.
There is no reason to claim that something is non-deterministic simply because of ignorance or lack of understanding. So yes, I'm actually quite sure of my stance, which is that I'm aware of mine (and others) vast ignorance in many categories of knowledge, and consequently recognize that is what prevents us from having any totality of truth. You, on the other hand, can somehow write off entire domains/systems of potential knowledge with a simple assumptive wave of the hand. As I said, quite an impressive feat, I wish I had your god-like omniscience to be able to do that.
Science alone is clearly the single way to arrive at knowledge, and you are its prophet.