Whether or not there is a consensus has very little to do with the existence of an objective answer. For example, there is no consensus on God's existence, but there is presumably an objective fact of the matter as to whether God exists.

Philosophy teaches us that there's no such thing as objective answers. All of us are beholden to subjectivity and perspective, which means we can't reliably judge whether something is objective anyway. Consensus is moot, and I'd go so far as to say that consensus is how you get religions.

Philosophy teaches you that? How?

Most working philosophers do not hold this view. (https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)

First, I'm speaking for myself, not the orthodoxy. Martin Luther was 500 years ago, after all.

Second, what am I supposed to realize via that link?

You can be objective in how you present the various ideas and viewpoints that people have on the subject. Rather than saying a viewpoint is right, you explain the reasons people give for it, and then let the reader decide which arguments they buy and which they reject.