real disagreements about real things

Statements that correspond to reality are true, and statements that don't are false. I suppose most people would agree. Truth is objective.

Hence, who has more respect for truth: someone who acknowledges, perhaps even embraces, that disagreements about the truth imply that someone is wrong, or someone who would rather believe in a fluid and subjective "truth" for the magical result that everybody disagrees but nobody is wrong? When our irreconcilable ideas conflict, yet remain simultaneously true, the "truth" of those ideas means something entirely different than "corresponding to reality". And the consequence is our ideas being neither right nor wrong. What is the value of being "right" about the truth, while the opposite "wrong" ideas are also true?

A common objection is that "spiritual" truth is different in quality from "material" truth, so various spiritual "perspectives" can be right; this is the "all ways lead to God" mentality. It works in the abstract. Just picture the Higher Power as having diverse manifestations and every person having the inborn capability to connect to that Higher Power with diverse techniques. Unfortunately, it falls apart almost immediately when the "ways" and the "God" (gods?) are substituted with much different definitions by different people, such that it's nonsensical to keep thinking everybody's talking about the same stuff. If one person's god is named Larry, and the way to please Larry is to live soberly, but another person's god is named Curly, and the way to please Curly is to engage in revelry, how ridiculous is it to say that 1) either way will please either god, or merely 2) Larry and the Curly are the same god? (Don't even consider the savage god Moe who's pleased by the harming of infidels!) "Spiritual" truth must be similar to "material" truth in order for "truth" to have a consistent basis. Christianity opponents use an eerie echo of this same argument when they state that the content of Christianity (and, to be fair, every other religion) should be subject to scientific methods. They say that Christianity has no scientific proof. They and the Christians are alike in saying that Truth is Truth. Christians simply believe in a broader range of sources of Truth.

Alternatively, someone can compromise and harmonize spiritual disagreements by diplomatically asserting that everyone is partially right. Unfortunately, this too falls apart as soon as someone asks the follow-up question, "partially right about what?" Partially right indicates the state of being an approximation of reality. Isn't this meaningless unless the reality is known? Someone can't approximate what doesn't exist, and someone surely can't approximate anything at all without acknowledging the approximation to possibly be very weak. The point is, to say that everyone is partially right is to conceive a right ideal which partially matches what everyone thinks. That right ideal is the definitive truth, so we are back to saying that Truth is something in particular.

Don't minimize disagreements by pretending the disagreements don't exist or don't matter. Disagreements don't arise by accident, and each of the disagreeing parties has a stake in being right. To pretend otherwise is as presumptuous or arbitrary as those in the disagreement.