I've always thought about it this way: If you're seeking the truth, then what you don't know is more important to you than what you know. That's a fundamental orientation. Some may consider this "analysis paralysis", but if you devote enough time to figuring out where you're wrong (I spend hours before hitting the "post" button sometimes), you strip away the ambiguity and falsehoods. Scientists operate under this principle when testing a hypothesis.
Any religion or belief system that claims to not only HAVE the truth, but to also BE it has committed a paradoxical flaw. That finalistic attitude is the ultimate shut down of the data window which prevents new information entering and contradicting (and therefore updating) the belief system.
Consider the staunch and dogmatic approach of religion. The Bible, for instance, was written when there was no concept of physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology or medicine. Yet, the arrogance of Christianity claims with absolute certainty that the virgin birth was a fact. Dead people being resurrected is conclusive. Sicknesses and disease were caused by divine plagues. Thunder and lighting were portentous signs of Yahweh's communication. This is not progressive. They say that the Bible has never changed and that God remains the same to the tests of time? That's not a virtuous sign of credibility.This is stone age defiance that warrants extinction.
Like language, truth is progressive. We live in error and strive toward the truth. Scientists are willing to rip holes in their own theories and arguments.That is why you'll find countless books on Darwin's Ghosts, Discarded Science, The Origins of Modern Science, and so on. I believe it's in this striving that the truth is most accurately embodied.