Im simply refering to truth in general... weather religous or scientific in nature doesnt really matter... Since you brought up religion... lets use "There is a God" now woukd you say that statement is either true in all cases or false in all cases?
I'm going to offer an answer here.
The problem is that science and religion go about discovering "truth" in different ways. Science finds an unexplained phenomena, poses a possible explanation, and tests to see if that explanation is meaningful. Evidence that contradicts the explanation means the explanation is not valid, or is somehow incomplete.
Religion, on the other hand, sees an unexplained phenomena, says "God did it!" and does not test the explanation to see if it works. No evidence to the contrary matters. If presented with evidence that opposes the religious explanation, the religious person just points to the "God did it" explanation and asserts that the contradictory evidence is meaningless, because we already know God did it, and since God did it, we don't need to explain it any further, because God.
These are two very different approaches to deriving "truth" from our world. The science based method has resulted in the computer you are using to type this and the internet that you use to share it with us. The religious based method says the blood of a bird will purify you of leprosy.
Which one of these actually works?!?!?
So for the scientist, truth is about the best possible explanation given the best available evidence. For the believer, truth is about what we want to be true, and dismissing all evidence to the contrary.
So, while you are stuck curing disease with bird blood, science has antibiotics, immunizations, skin and organ transplants, blood transfusions, stem cell implants, and the gamma ray knife. If you would prefer the scientific methods to treat your disease over bird blood, then congratulations, it is only to the extent that you reject religious explanations and accept scientific ones that you can be considered a rational person.
And of course the best possible explanation given the best evidence means that the explanation is subject to update, revision, or even outright rejection in the face of newer, better evidence. Religion says "No thanks, we're confident that primitive, barbaric, ignorant, desert wandering, late bronze age goat-herders who couldn't even tell that insects have 6 legs got it right way back then, and there's
nothing you can say or do to convince me otherwise".
Look, if paleontologists were to uncover the frozen remains of a Tyrannosaurus Rex in a 10,000 year old ice formation, and all possible testing and analysis revealed that it was indeed a specimen of T-Rex from the end of the last ice age, it would seriously mess up evolutionary theory. And evolutionary theorists
would admit this, and realize that they need to go back to the drawing board in a major way. It would be a monumental discovery, and would revolutionize science, and advance our understanding of the world we live in, much as the theory of evolution did when first proposed by Darwin. Or going the other way, if paleontologists found a T. Rex from 67 million years ago, and the fossil was entirely intact and well preserved, and in the stomach region there was a human skeleton, with the broken end of a spear still clutched in its hand, and with signs of damage to the human skeleton specifically from the teeth of the T.Rex, that would blow evolution away.
That would be a real smoking gun, and evolutionary scientists would
admit that it was a huge problem for their theory.
But since God is eternal and everlasting and blah blah blah, you can't just overwrite God's information with new information. How could God be wrong? Because he is no smarter than the inbred rednecks who wrote his alleged biography! Imagine that.
