Do you think that science rests on a foundation of absolute knowledge?

I have a simple question, if you do:

If the perception of an "apple" is something, according to neuroscience, constructed in our brains, and the concept of "light waves" does not refer to an absolute reality, but is a purely mathematical conceptualization devised by physicists - as are all of the named forces and subatomic particles - what is the ultimate nature of that which underlies all perpections and all mathematical concepts?

That's actually a rhetorical question, designed to inspire you to think about the essence of what Prudence wrote. If you look carefully at the foundations of science, you'll realize that the scientific method (I'm speaking of someone with years of doctoral level training in research) is not designed to deal with, much less answer questions regarding the underlying foundation which stimulates the construction of perceptions in our brain and the creation of mathematical constructs.

And, as Prudence so beautifully explained, if the nature of what underlies all of our experience and conceptualizations is infinite, then of course not just every culture and every human religion, but every single human being is going to offer a different take on that underlying Reality - an infinite possibility of views of it.