Q:

How does "eilu v'eilu" work out with an absolute truth?

I'm under the impression that religious Judaism believes in absolute truths. That being the case, how does the concept of "eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim" (Eruvin 13b) work out? When two scholars argue, how can they both be right?

A:

A simple parable for this idea is the idea of projection. If one looks at a cylinder, for example, it could be a square or a circle. In reality, it is both or neither. 
Torah, in principle, is higher than human understanding. Therefore, as the Torah comes into human understanding it gets "filtered" through their brain (even two prophets would not use the same wording). Therefore, if someone applies the Torah approach to a problem and gets to one resolution, the result is true.
However, practically, as it comes into the world, there can be only one truth, which is known as "Halacha". Therefore, when one asks a shaila, he is expecting "what to do", not "there are two approaches" because this world, a physical world, is limited in the sense that one cannot do two opposite things at a time. Therefore, the halacha could go like either one or the other, and halachically, the other could be rejected completely, as if it wasn't there (Beis Shamai v Beis Hillel). In the source of Halacha, in the higher worlds, however, they are both true.

A:

There are certainly absolute truths in regard to things that are known or things that are fundamental principles - it is absolutely true that HaShem created the universe and redeemed the Israelites from Egypt, for example.
When it comes to things that are really unknowable, the best we can do is base our understanding of them on sound principles handed down to us from Sinai.  
One subset of unknowable things is, ironically, Halachah.  What I mean by that is that we cannot know with absolute certainty (ie., we cannot know the absolute truth about) what HaShem wants us to do in any given situation.  
Certain things are easier to determine than others - we can know that lighting a camp fire on Shabbath is prohibited.  That is explicitly forbidden by the Torah.  What about operating an electric wheelchair?  That would depend on the definition of certain types of Melachah and the design of the wheelchair, and whether or not the neighborhood is in a public domain.  Depending on the situation, and also depending on the analysis of the applicable laws, one Posek can reach a different conclusion than another.  
The same is true for things that we would like to know outside the realm of laws.  What happens to us when we die?  What do certain esoteric verses mean when they describe the Heavenly Court?  We cannot know these things for certain.  Because of that we have to rely on the Sinaitic principles that we have, and different scholars can reach different conclusions based on the limited knowledge that we do have (verses, primarily, as well as earlier scholars' analyses of the same subject).
That is Eilu VeEilu in a nutshell.

A:

There are many different interpretations of "Elu V'Elu". It is rather difficult to say that it literally means both sides of an argument can be true, since it is applied to disputes of facts. E.g. what were the events of a story, or what did so-and-so hold. They cannot both be literally true, since they were events that actually happened. 
A more likely explanation is that "Elu V'elu" means both sides are legitimate interpretations. While only one of them may in fact be true, at the time of the dispute it is not possible to prove one side wrong. And one cannot ask God, since "Lo B'shamayim He" (The Torah is no longer in heaven, it has been given over to man to interpret). Since we cannot prove which side is right, a person can learn both sides without worrying that one of them is wrong. 
Absolute truth exists, but in certain areas of dispute it is not possible to find it. So both sides are considered the word of God. 

