Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago, I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves.
Socrates definitely knew the absolute truth - that's why he was killed. Okay, question, what were the Greek scriptures?
I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future.
Eastern religion(s) say that you've already settled (believing that you're a body, or a body only) and that you will never be able to realize Truth in the future - that since Truth is only realised in the Now, it can never be in the future, no matter when it happens because when it happens it will always be "now". It's like arguing whether Enlightment is slow or sudden - Zen says that it is always sudden.
... the scientific method is ... by far the most reliable and prudent.
Reliable? It can only reliable at the present moment - tomorrow it will change its findings thereby relegating today's belief as false. Yesterday we believed in black holes, now Stephen Hawking says there is no such thing as black holes.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=no+such+thing+as+black+holes&ia=videos
Here's the thing, any scientic belief you may have will not make you a better person. Yes, technology will affect your life, but not Scientific thought. You couls say the same thing about Religion, but religion has given humanity art, music, champagne, the written word, etc. Scriptures, or not, it has affected humanity for the better, religious caused deaths notwithstanding. The religious believer can state that religion has made him a better person, the scientific believer cannot.
... is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence?
Wait long enough and you will realise that you just died. Do you really believe the world you see? Look at the world as Politics and you will realize the futility of it.
What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us.
It's by making judgements that we out grow our beliefs. You can't say that you have to jump in sooner or later - whether you know it or not we're already in the water.
Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?
Since it is so young (started about 2000 years ago with the Greeks?, at least according to Western Civilization) then it will probably be another 2000 years before we'll be at a point where we can believe it to be true. You and I will surely be dead by then. Here's the thing - we will never know. You will never know.
You say that Science is young and underdeveloped, that we should settle for "we just don't know yet," but you also don't "want to settle on something that might be an illusion." Can you see the faulty logic?
Forget about trying to be logical - what do you do to make this world a better place? That in itself is an illusion, though, because no one can change the world, we can only change ourselves. Yes, the political mind wants to rule the world, to change the world - and there have been people who have shaped the world. But ultimately we die opened handed, just like Alexander the Great, where he had his hands outside his coffin.
Trust me, belief in black holes, dark matter, dark energy, the speed of light, evolution, et. al., will have absolutely no direct self generated effect on your, or my, life. Yes, the technology that comes out of Science will, but not the belief therewith. If you believe in evolution then why be a racist?, for example. The racist will believe that he is superior evolutionary wise, of course. That doesn't make him abetter person, it only makes him believe that his race is superior. Which begs the question that if Humanity started in Africa then we are all carry African genes. The racist will therefore have to find the "Black" gene to rationalise his belief, no? How will feeling superior make him a better person when he holds others in contempt? At the present time the white race may consider itself masters of the world but there are races much older - the Indus, the Egyptians, the Chinese, etc. "Our" known history only goes back some 10,000 years, the Indus go back some 75,000 years...
Here's the thing - if anyone states some Scientific belief of the past which has been proven wrong, the defenders of Science will attack it as non-nonsensical or will say that only certain societies believed it and that Science today doesn't believe such things while conveniently leaving out that what we believe today may be proven wrong "tomorrow".
