> In science, the endpoint at which truth is realized is when a theory is proven

A whole lot of people would argue against the notion of theories ever being “proven” in science. Meanwhile, a whole lot of people would raise the point that there’s a path to truth in politics—one that’s determined by evaluating historical evidence, making use of rational argument, and proposing policies that are in accordance with whatever latest research the social sciences, whatever latest developments political philosophy and ethics have to offer, and whatever the latest developments in history are. Or something like that.

However, we can easily imagine a political party that makes all the right decisions policy-wise, makes competent use of all the frameworks to analyze complex social phenomena in the right way, and still collapses into a corrupt entity suddenly determined by special interests because rather than opinion being central to politics, it is power structures. But in that sense, politics isn’t all that different from science. It’s just that in politics, there’s usually a whole lot more at stake than in science. So science can afford progressing “one funeral at a time” as Max Planck described:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

For politics, that’s usually not a desirable option.

Or rather, there’s a political and sociological aspect to science that requires our attention. The works of Kuhn and Feyerabend and I guess “continental” philosophy of science has demonstrated as much.

>In this way science and religion are quite similar and a future where the two are synthesized into one field is possible.

What does that mean concretely? Science and religion (or, I guess, “spirituality”) being thought of as “non-overlapping magisteria” is a rather recent development. Aristotle’s conception of the sciences included theology for example.