Author: Dr. Jay Forrest

Jay N. Forrest (D.Min.) is a Deistic Buddhist philosopher trained in Zen and Vipassanā, with advanced Buddhist studies at Harvard, Princeton, UVA, Naropa, Columbia, and Universiteit Leiden. He is a certified meditation teacher and the author of over a dozen books on Buddhist philosophy and contemplative practice.

A Simple Epistemology

How do you know that what you believe is true? That is the question known as epistemology or the “theory of knowledge.”

I don’t think we can know very much for certain. We have to give up that search. But I do think we can discover how probable a claim to truth is.

I will make a complex issue simple. You can tell whether a claim is probably true by applying the three C’s: correspondence, consistency, and consequences.

Truth is the correspondence of a claim with reality. If what you claim matches reality then what you claim is true. If your claim doesn’t match reality then it is false.

The important question is how do you tell whether or not your belief matches reality? By the objective and verifiable evidence for or against the belief. So the correspondence is mostly about a belief matching the available evidence.

The next test of truth is the consistency of the belief with one’s whole worldview. Contraction is a sign that something is wrong, either the belief is false or part of one’s worldview is false.

The final test of truth is the consequences of accepting the claim as true. If you can live it, it may be false. You will know a claim by its fruits. You don’t get bad results from a good belief, nor do you get good results from a bad belief.

This is a very simple epistemology. It is merely the outline for a larger exploration.

True Rational Consistency

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

To paraphrase Charles Finney: True rational consistency does not consist in stereotyping our beliefs and views, and in refusing to make any improvements lest we be guilty of change.

True rational consistency means holding our minds open to receive the rays of truth from every source, and in changing our beliefs as often and as fast as we obtain further information. This way of life alone accords with the claim of being rational.

No one should be afraid to change their beliefs in conformity with increasing knowledge. Such a fear would keep the world, at best, at a perpetual standstill on all subjects of inquiry, including science. Such a fear would mean all improvement would be prevented. The quest for truth would be aborted.

Science as a Part of Philosophy

Most people today think that science and philosophy are two different things. They are not. Science is a branch of philosophy.

Before the 19th century, this claim would have gone largely unchallenged. Before this time, what we now call science was known as natural philosophy—clearly understood as a branch of philosophy rather than something separate and distinct.

The breach came when science became more and more confident in its findings, while philosophy in general still dealt with reasonable speculation.

As natural philosophy developed its own methods and specializations, it made sense to have specialists in that branch of philosophy. Scientists are specialists in natural philosophy.

But many of these specialists were not happy being associated with philosophy, which they saw as making little or no progress, because they made the mistake of equating the scientific pursuit of knowledge about nature with the philosophical pursuit of wisdom. They’re complementary, but they’re not the same.

So the specialists in natural philosophy effectively rebranded their branch of philosophy as science, and then began to distance themselves from philosophy—even though their entire foundation remained philosophical.

The simple fact is that you cannot derive the scientific method from the scientific method. The scientific method itself arises from philosophical inquiry. It was philosophy that developed the scientific method. Once the method was developed, philosophers could arrive at a better and more secure understanding of the world.

But at no time did science cease to be a branch of philosophy. It always has been and always will be. The mere fact that a method developed within philosophy is successful in giving us reliable results does not make that branch of philosophy cease to be a branch of philosophy. It doesn’t lose its belonging to philosophy just because it succeeds. It simply means that philosophy has developed a fairly trustworthy method of studying a particular domain.

Philosophy, however, must take into consideration all of reality in order to construct its worldviews. Philosophy is about helping us live wisely in the world. To do that, we must understand the world in which we live, who and what we are, our purpose and place, and how we ought to relate to one another.

My point is that science is a branch of philosophy, and it is a branch that philosophers need to reintegrate into their philosophical systems. The success of a philosophical system depends on its correspondence with the nature of reality, and science is our best current understanding of natural reality.

Atheism Defined

The word atheism comes from the Greek atheos (ἄθεος), meaning “no god.” It combines the prefix a– (“no”) and theos (“god”), with the suffix -ism indicating a belief or doctrine. In its most literal sense, atheism means “the belief that there is no God or gods.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it this way: “The term ‘atheism’ is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods).”

Atheism, then, is not merely “a lack of belief,” but a definite position — a belief that rejects the existence of any divine or supernatural being. Where theism affirms the existence of God, atheism denies it; where agnosticism suspends judgment, atheism makes a clear claim.

Over time, some have attempted to redefine atheism as simply “a lack of belief in gods.” But traditionally, philosophically, and linguistically, atheism has always meant the belief that there is no God. The distinction matters: a lack of belief (agnosticism or non‑theism) is not the same as belief in nonexistence (atheism).

Put simply:

– Theism affirms that God exists.
– Atheism asserts that God does not exist.
– Agnosticism withholds judgment, admitting uncertainty.

These are the only three logical attitudes one can take toward the claim “God exists.” Atheism does not merely reject this claim; it advances a counterclaim — that there is no God.

And because it is a claim, it carries the burden of proof. The assertion that there is no God must therefore be supported by evidence or sound reasoning.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, makes no such claim. It neither affirms nor denies the existence of God, but simply admits, “I do not know.” For that reason, agnosticism requires no evidence — it is a position of suspended judgment rather than declaration.

The Bible is Not God’s Word

Voltaire once declared, “The Bible is filled with contradictions, follies, and horrors.” If God’s word were truly perfect, it would be universal, unchangeable, and flawless—qualities only nature itself possesses. Yet the Bible falls short on every count, riddled with human flaws that reveal it as a product of ancient minds, not divine perfection.

Neither Perfect nor Universal

The Bible is neither perfect nor universal, having been written by and for a small Middle Eastern nation over centuries, reflecting their specific cultural and tribal concerns rather than timeless truths. It brims with contradictions, historical errors, myths, and clear immorality that no divine authorship could produce. Far from unchangeable, it has endured countless edits, deliberate corruptions, mistranslations, and scribal alterations across manuscripts and languages. God did not pen a single word of it—men like Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Paul did, each bringing their own biases and agendas. It’s not a single book but a disparate library of clashing perspectives from dozens of authors, none aligning into a singular divine view, proving its human origins through and through.

The Bible Contradicts Itself

Genesis exemplifies this chaos with two irreconcilable creation accounts stemming from different ancient source traditions. Genesis 1 unfolds in six precise days: light on day one, sky on day two, land and plants on day three, sun and stars on day four, birds and fish on day five, land animals and humans last on day six, male and female created together. Plants appear before humans or animals. Genesis 2 flips it entirely: man formed first from dust, then plants and garden, animals named by man afterward, woman last from his rib. No shrubs exist before man due to lack of rain; birds and animals come after him. Genesis 1 uses “Elohim” in formal, cosmic style; Genesis 2 shifts to intimate “YHWH Elohim.”

Jesus’s birth fares no better across Matthew and Luke, whose nativity stories clash irreconcilably on location details, visitors, travel, events, timing, and lineage that cannot coexist as literal history. Matthew places it in a Bethlehem house visited by Magi bearing royal gifts, guided by a star—no inn, manger, or shepherds—followed by Herod massacring infants and the family fleeing to Egypt. Luke insists on a stable manger due to no inn room, angels heralding shepherds to the newborn—no Magi or star—with a census dragging the Nazareth family to Bethlehem around 6 CE, temple rites, and direct return home, ignoring Herod who died by 4 BCE. Genealogies diverge wildly: Matthew traces 41 generations through Solomon’s royal line; Luke offers 77 via Nathan, names clashing post-David.

Judas’s death adds yet another irreconcilable clash between Matthew and Acts, Luke’s sequel, differing on method, motive, field ownership, timing, and aftermath in ways that expose incompatible traditions. Matthew depicts Judas hanging himself in remorse after confessing his sin and hurling back 30 silver pieces, which the priests then use to buy a potter’s field fulfilling prophecy. Acts claims he buys the field himself with blood money before falling headlong there, his body bursting open with guts spilling out—no repentance mentioned, just greedy acquisition and divine judgment as a Satan-possessed traitor.

The Bible is Morally Deficient

The Bible is also morally deficient, endorsing or regulating acts that offend modern conscience and conflict with any claim to perfect morality. Deuteronomy 20:16–17 and Joshua 6:21 command the annihilation of entire Canaanite cities—men, women, children, and even animals—to suppress idolatry. 1 Samuel 15:3 instructs Saul to wipe out the Amalekites completely, including infants. Numbers 31 records the slaughter of Midianite boys and non-virgin women, while virgin girls are taken as captives.

Slavery, too, is regulated rather than condemned: Exodus 21:20–21 permits the beating of slaves if they survive a day; Leviticus 25:44–46 allows permanent ownership of foreign slaves; and Ephesians 6:5 tells slaves to obey their masters as they would Christ.

Likewise, the Bible endorses patriarchy. Women are subjected to male authority: Ephesians 5:22–24 commands wives to submit to their husbands in everything, and 1 Timothy 2:11–12 forbids women to teach or hold authority over men.

Forgeries in the Bible

Forgeries are widespread throughout the New Testament. Critical scholars have identified several key texts as pseudepigraphal—works falsely attributed to apostles to secure authority amid later church controversies. Second Peter (c. 80–120Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE) is widely regarded as such, written decades after Peter’s death around 64Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE. Its polished Greek contrasts sharply with the simpler, Aramaic-influenced style of First Peter; it borrows heavily from Jude; it went uncited by early church fathers such as Irenaeus; and it contains historical anachronisms, like treating Paul’s letters as an already fixed body of “Scripture,” while also claiming eyewitness experiences that don’t align with Peter’s lifetime.

The Pastoral Epistles (1–2Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.Timothy and Titus, c.Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.90–110Ebionites, probably the true original followers of Jesus as Jewish-Christians adhering strictly to the Torah, rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and thus dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. They accepted only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, shunning the other gospels and epistles that elevated Paul’s grace-over-law theology, making a compelling case that proto-orthodox Christianity triumphed by sidelining these Torah-observant heirs to Jesus’s movement.CE) show similar signs of later authorship: their vocabulary is unusually advanced, they describe formal bishop-led church structures unknown in authentic Pauline letters, and they reflect theological concerns—especially anti-Gnostic polemics—that arose only after Paul’s era. They also assume a settled New Testament canon and lack strong early attestation.

The Ebionites

The Ebionites were likely the original followers of Jesus—Jewish Christians who strictly observed the Torah and saw themselves as preserving his authentic message. They rejected the apostle Paul as an apostate from the law and dismissed all his writings as heretical inventions. Accepting only a Hebrew or Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, they rejected the other gospels and epistles that promoted Paul’s grace-over-law theology. Their existence suggests that early, Torah-faithful Christianity was gradually displaced as the proto-orthodox movement gained power by marginalizing these original Jewish followers of Jesus.

The Gnostics

By now everybody has heard about the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and others from Nag Hammadi, which offer alternative visions of Jesus emphasizing secret knowledge (gnosis), spiritual enlightenment over blind faith, and a divine spark trapped in matter—texts that early church fathers like Irenaeus condemned as heretical yet which rival the canonical gospels in antiquity and provide diverse insights into Jesus’s teachings suppressed by the winners of Christianity’s canon wars.

The Canon

Marcion, labeled a heretic, birthed the first known canon around 140 CE: a truncated Luke and ten Pauline epistles, rejecting the Old Testament entirely as the work of an inferior Demiurge creator god distinct from Jesus’s loving Father. This highlights early Christianity’s profound diversity, with the 27 New Testament books chosen not universally but by one victorious branch called proto-orthodox amid rival groups. Athanasius first listed those exact 27 in his 367 CE Easter Letter, ratified regionally at Hippo (393 CE) and Carthage (397 CE) under Augustine, yet disagreements lingered. Even today, Protestant Bibles contain 66 books, Catholic Bibles have 73 with deuterocanonicals, Eastern Orthodox include 76-79 varying by jurisdiction, and the Ethiopian Orthodox totals 81—which one truly represents God’s authorized word?

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

Bart Ehrman documents numerous orthodox corruptions of Scripture to combat “heresies,” with a standout example in Luke 3:22 at Jesus’ baptism: older Latin manuscripts and patristic quotes from Irenaeus read “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” (echoing Psalm 2:7, supporting Adoptionist views of Jesus becoming divine at baptism), found in the Gospel of the Ebionites, Western Greek text-types, Old Latin manuscripts, and quoted by Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and even Augustine. This widespread early attestation from Rome to Palestine suggests it dominated 2nd-4th centuries before scribes deliberately changed it to the orthodox-friendly “in you I am well pleased” across the Greek tradition to enforce Trinitarian Christology from the start.

Textual Criticism

Textual criticism reveals massive instability: fewer than 10 Greek New Testament manuscripts from the first four centuries contain any complete books, and those that do show no two agreeing fully, with fragments riddled by variants. By the 16th century, when Christianity dominated, approximately 5,800 Greek manuscripts survive, but multiplying copies only multiplies errors through scribal mistakes, intentional changes, and harmonizations. As Bart Ehrman notes, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” Defenders claim no major doctrines change, yet examples abound: 1 Timothy 3:16 shifts from “God was manifest in the flesh” (KJV, supporting deity of Christ) to “He appeared in the flesh” (NIV); 1 John 5:7 drops the explicit Trinity formula “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJV) for “For there are three that testify” (NIV).

Translation

Over 900 English translations and paraphrases exist, from Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament to modern versions like NIV, ESV, and NLT, all differing in wording, phrasing, or interpretation—even on core doctrines like salvation, hell, and Jesus’s nature—proving even expert translators and scholars can’t agree on what the Bible means, as each version tweaks thousands of verses to fit theological biases or linguistic updates.

Greatest Communicator?

If a truly supreme intelligence personally inspired the Bible as its greatest communicator, wouldn’t it guarantee crystal-clear, unambiguous communication immune to 2,000 years of fatal misinterpretation, bloody wars like the Crusades and Inquisitions, and endless doctrinal schisms over baptism, predestination, and the eucharist? Instead, we face irreconcilable contradictions, moral horrors, forgeries, plus over 900 mutually divergent English translations alone, each altering key verses—this isn’t divine perfection but the messy fingerprint of human authors, editors, scribes, and agendas across cultures and eras, proving the Bible bears the unmistakable mark of man, not God.

Conclusion

Adding up all this evidence—contradictions, immorality, forgeries, corruptions, textual variants, translation chaos—one can only conclude that the Bible is not God’s word. The truth is that God gave us reason, not revelation. The sooner we ditch these bronze-age ideas, the sooner we can embrace the path of enlightenment expressed by Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Voltaire.

Dangers of Christian Nationalism

Jesus is reported to have said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36).

When church and state join forces, you know that bad things are about to happen. This is not theory; this is history. When the Roman Empire made Catholic Christianity the religion of the state, soon after, the persecutions followed.

When Jesus was offered by the devil “all the kingdoms of the world,” he refused (Matt. 4). Now the Church in the United States is being made the same offer. Unfortunately, it is bowing the knee to glory and power—to a kingdom that belongs to this world.

Jesus said, “My kingdom does not belong to this world.” Then why do some Christians want to create a kingdom on earth? This is against the wishes of Christ as recorded in their own Bible. And so we now have Christians who are willing to “fight” and kill for God.

The sad part is that as they pursue Christian nationalism, they fail to realize that they are joining up with the “ruler of this world.” And do you know who that is? According to their own book, it’s the devil (John 16:11; 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4). That is why 1 John 5:19 says that “the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.”

The most dangerous people in Jesus’ day were the religious leaders. During the Dark Ages, when church and state were united, again it was the religious leaders who fostered the inquisitions, the crusades, and the witch hunts. Not much has changed in 2,000 years.

All Scripture quotations are from the NRSV Updated Edition unless otherwise noted.