Truth Religion and Science

  ​
This question troubled my mind since I was a teen. Now I am retired and have my theory, which has developed in my mind my whole life.
    When a kid, in my grandma’s settlement, the villagers associated any technological advance with  “the devil’s doing.” TVs, phones, radio, landing on the moon- all those things puzzled the people, but strangely enough, they admired and used them. They talked about “devil’s doing” with a smile. Then, after reading the Bible, I realized that god opposes progress. He punished Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Later, when people wanted to build the Babel Tower to reach the sky, god mixed their languages, so they could not communicate to finish the work. Even if they are allegories, I could not miss their meaning.
      What is the relation with the truth?
    For science, the absolute truth does not exist. When trying to find the absolute truth using math, all science can see is a space where the truth exists but cannot put its finger on it. The main reason is that everything moves (called entropy) in our Universe, and we may find the absolute truth only if the Universe freezes, but then we do not have the tools to find it. There are other examples, and for those interested, I would explain at the end of this article how science concepts that contradict each other all have practical applications that work. So, only relative truth exists, related to a set of axioms that we develop until we obtain something that works.
    The absolute truth exists for religion; it is god’s existence. The problem is that there are many religions on earth, each with its god, gods, or concepts. So, the truth is relative to whom you ask. This is a big problem because one’s belief negate the other’s.
   
    Conclusion? For science, it is no problem accepting that only relative truth exists, while religion rejecting this concept (cannot be otherwise) leads to deadly confrontations.
 
    Here is how science could work with conflicting concepts.
    The math we learned in school is based on the five Euclidian axioms. The first for are so simple that no one contests them. Example is: if we have 2 points in the Univers, we can draw a line from one to the other. Only axion 5 created headaches for the mathematicians.
Axiom 5: if we have a line L and a point P outside it, we can draw one and only one line passing through P and is parallel to L.
    In the 18th century, Lobachevsky changed the axiom 5, saying that the Universe is more complex than we can draw on paper, and we can draw more than one line passing through P and parallel to L. He developed a math based on it.
    In the 19th century, Riemann said no line could be drawn through P and parallel to L. He developed a math based on it.
    The 3 maths (Euclid, Lobachevsky, and Riemann) contradict each other at the base, but all are true.
    With Euclidian math, humankind built buildings, trains, airplanes, and everything we see around us. So Euclidian math must be true. However, the other two maths are the bases for the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Based on these theories, humankind developed atomic energy, the internet, and mobile technology. They are true as well.
 
    So, I had to choose. Either believe the absolute truth as spelled by my lovely grandmothers and hate all denying it, or accept science where different and conflicting concepts are fighting at the debate level.