Truth is objective ... not dependent on the perception of human beings (too capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which does not waver ... Truth is that which has occurred in the past and the past cannot be altered .... truth does not exist in the future ... truth does exist in the present. So I am talking about that truth ... not the mind of god ... not the mind of the universe ... and not perception. Perception is not reality ... perceptions of reality are compulsively filtered by people through a screen of what they want and do not want to be true ... the higher our level (or frequency) of consciousness/experience the better chance we have of aligning our perception with reality ... universal truth.
There may, indeed, be universal Truth. The problem is how can we know what is the universal truth versus our perception when our knowledge is necessarily incomplete and possibly always will be? One may claim universal truth but what is claimed to be Truth could merely be an incomplete perception of universal Truth. To my eye, our understanding of "Truth" will always be incomplete and coloured by subjective perception, though we can strive to get closer to "Truth". It is asymptotic: we can get closer and closer but will never, ever get there.
This is one of the strengths of science when practiced properly. It admits that our knowledge of the truth is incomplete and always leaves for future discoveries or research to change or expand on an accepted hypothesis. Newton's gravity was (and remains) good enough for dealing with our local system and similar systems but Einstein expanded on it in a way that deals better with the extreme cases like black holes. Newton is sufficient to get us to the moon, but to fully understand the workings of the broader universe, we need Einstein. And there are already people doing work that may expand upon or modify Einstein, or at least fill gaps in the General Theory of Relativity.
Religion believes it seeks a deeper Truth but at the same time is all too often unwilling to admit that its knowledge of that Truth may be similarly in need of refinement and expansion; that it may also never have complete knowledge/understanding of the spiritual Truth it seeks just as our knowledge/understanding of the physical universe as revealed by science may never be 100% complete.
Though, for my part, I do not think religion is about seeking a single, objective Truth, but about finding meaning in our existence, something that is neither absolute nor objective. It about finding OUR Truth rather than finding THE Truth though in doing so we may well be drawing closer to some kind of Truth. Sure, consensus about what we find plays a role in finding that truth, but we need not all arrive at the same destination on our spiritual journeys.
"We need not think alike to love alike," is a common UU aphorism (attributed to Unitarian Francis David but according to at least one article, actually likely derived from a John Wesley quote: “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?”).
Which, of course, arguably makes Love the one absolute Truth; the one destination we can all seek to reach.