lantz: " if absolute truth is viewed as the concrete workings of the natural world around us, science is the best way to uncover that truth to the most accurate degree."
Best way according to whom? Obviously, to you, according to the standards set by Western civilization's mechanistic view of the world, since, 'best way' ('logic,' science,' academia') seems exclusive of those lifeways which did not, nor do now, exhibit those qualities you hold so dear.
lantz: "The question is how much truth each perspective has in relation to the natural world. "
Perspective is nothing but natural, lantz. Yet, you desire to relate each perspective to something non-perspectival ('nature,' 'truth,' 'objectivity), or if it is perspectival than it's *agreed* upon beforehand what *should* constitute 'truth.' But, you've told us truth is different/better than opinion, although such an agreement would be an opinion, eh? That's the problem here.
Again, define truth for us, because you are talking in circles. How are the axioms used to define truth, true?