I do not believe humanity has evolved to a point where we understand the true nature of the universe
That is ultimately a retreat into pure solipsism, which is just plain stupid - or at best cannot be considered as a serious rebuttal. Even hardcore solipsists don't actually conduct their daily lives as if they believe it.
Case in point
Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not. Therefore if this turns out it the nature of our existence and universe - both sides of the debate (as far as the term 'flat' or 'globe' would be correct but ultimately the earth (and everything else) would be flat.
There simply is not enough evidence out there to prove or disprove this theory which plenty of actual scientists are devoting time and research into.
That example is not a clever as you apparently think it is, in fact I think it betrays a fair amount of ignorance on the subject. The "Holographic Universe" idea is an abstract mathematical concept related to String Theory. The number of people that understand String Theory at the mathematical level can arguably be counted on one hand, and some of them even admit that no one really "understands" it, other than massaging the math until the outputs to inputs produce a superset of both General Relativity and classical quantum mechanics. There is very little practical real-world application. (Yet, if ever.) The whole point of the Holographic Universe idea is that it doesn't actually matter which it is, and in principle you wouldn't be able to tell, at least at the macroscopic level. Most physicists and cosmologists regard it as immune to disproof and therefore not scientific. (Although others believe that there are, in principle, tests that could be conducted.)
But in the big picture, that is little different than the math of Superstring Theory working only in 11 dimensions. (So voila, 11 dimensions might exist, according to some Superstring Theorists.)
Which are all superseded by the question: are we really in a simulated universe?
But so what? The truth or falsity of those questions - even the "simulated universe" question (assuming it is simulated down to individual subatomic particles), by definition, doesn't affect our understanding of any part of the universe that affects our daily lives, nor do they yet have practical predictive qualities. And just because some physicists indulge themselves in fields that arguably may never produce real-world applications, doesn't mean all science - or even that non-practical field - is frivolous.
Until it can be tested and proven that we live in a computer universe, it doesn't matter if we do or not. (And even then it arguably wouldn't other than to satisfy intellectual curiosity of the why and how.) Until it can be tested and proven that we live in a holographic universe, it doesn't matter. Neither affect our daily lives, or even long-term outlook as a species. And both are likely concepts immune to disproof anyway. (If we did live in a computer-simulated universe but it was fundamentally impossible to either prove or disprove...would it matter?)
The motions of the sun, moon, and planets are things that clearly exist - according to any definition of "exist" that is meaningful on a daily human level - and obviously follow some repeatable, predictable rules that affect us. While understanding them may or may not affect YOUR daily life, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't even try to understand. King tides kill people, and are useful to predict. (Which requires accurately predicting the perigees of Earth's orbit around the sun, the moon's around Earth's, and the orbital alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth. Accurate prediction of phenomenon requires an understanding of the relevant laws of physics that "govern" them - in this case basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, as well as ever-improving bathymetric relief.) Many people also find the increasingly more accurate and detailed explanations for observed phenomenon - however meanderingly they may stumble towards describing "reality" - profoundly beautiful. I know I do.
Understanding stellar evolution may save our species, if we don't wipe ourselves out before then. That seems like worthwhile knowledge.
When people argue for a globe earth they are arrogant in the thinking that they understand the true nature of the universe. You could be wrong.
In what possible sane interpretation is that arrogance? Maybe you are confusing "knowledge", "science", and "the pursuit of understanding", with some egotistic conceit that we can comprehend the full truth of the universe. In science, those words typically have far humbler meanings than you seem to be ascribing. To most, the goal of science is to stumble toward explaining observed phenomenon, to some practical end that reduces suffering of living things, or maybe just to scratch the itch of human curiosity that has helped us survive this far.
It is not arrogant to try to understand how and why the things that affect you, do. Sounds like common-sense survival tactics, to me. Personally, I'm pretty fucking happy that we finally have a decent enough understanding of how tornadoes form, to give a few minutes advanced warning - rather than throwing up our arms and sacrificing virgins to appease the angry sky god, and just dying unnecessarily out of ignorance. It has literally saved the lives of a particular second cousin of mine. Or our breakthroughs with the Germ Theory of Disease. (Which has probably saved the entire genetic lines of both you and me from extinction before we ever existed.) Or advances in telescopes and observational techniques, that could someday help us avoid the fate of the Dinosaurs. (Maybe all of humanity doesn't deserve to survive, but MY kids sure as hell do.) I'm glad we understand how, why, and when solar eclipses happen, rather than just assuming, say, one or more angry gods are responsible. (If anything, being able to predict them is damn cool.)
Why does the heliocentric solar system model predict the orbits of Jupiter's four inner moons, which you can verify for yourself with walmart binoculars?
It seems to me the pinnacle of arrogance - and therefore also hypocrisy - to entertain a hypothesis that the Earth is not just the center of the universe - but is essentially the entire universe - put here by some apparently magical being just for us. Meanwhile justifying the hypothesis with an ancient, inscrutable, insufferably arrogant text, a never-ending series of ad-hoc hypotheses that never overturn or question the underlying ones which become increasingly difficult to justify, and finally resorting to conspiracy theory when all else fails, as pretty much all else has. I know you claim to be agnostic on it, but either way if you want arrogance - look in the mirror.
And of course I could be wrong. About everything I just said. You could be wrong. I could be wrong in my limited understanding of the universe. I could be wrong in my belief that you are probably human and not a parasitic reptile. My understanding that the sun will rise (or otherwise appear) tomorrow, could be dead wrong - and all my best laid plans about what to do tomorrow, laid to waste. But sometimes you gotta take a risk, for long-term planning, you know? I may not be alive to enjoy retirement, but I'm still saving for it and thereby limiting my current economic choices. Life is full of risks, and the risk of being wrong is just one of them. You, me, and everyone could be wrong about anything and everything. So what? What f'ing difference does that make? Should that fact just make us collapse into a heap and give up? Maybe the universe is nothing buy the spasms of a brain in a jar. But even if so, it seems to follow some pretty f'ing reliably predictable patterns.
I don't know what reality is. All I *really* know for sure is that, I believe my children are real, alive, and sentient. Kids have a way of making things really f'ing simple. My biology (or programming or illusions or fevered monster dreams) compels to do whatever it takes to keep them alive, without infringing on the rights of others whom I also believe are alive and sentient. And I use the abundant practical fruits of basic scientific research and discovery, each and every day to help them stay alive. And hey, maybe it's all BS and I'm wasting my time and effort. But what if I go with that hypothesis, and it turns out I was wrong, and my children really die? The most logical choice, for me, is to proceed through this world under the assumption that my kids are real and need my assistance to survive into emotionally and physically healthy adulthood, and that the predictable patterns of objects in the sky are also what they seem to be through binoculars, telescopes, and Nikon P900s are what they seem to be, and robotic space probes have confirmed them to be. So I will get up early tomorrow morning, make breakfast for my sleepy kids, encourage them to get ready in time to make it to summer camp and without too much fighting, then after some complicated kid-transportation logistics, see them early tomorrow evening for dinner. All the while, only occasionally suffering, and mostly enjoying the mysteries of the universe, and this limited time with the people I love.
(Man, why am I wasting time on this then.)