Friday 23 October 2015
On the rules of the game
Naturalism Under the Microscope
Paul Nelson April 30, 2012 4:18 PM
Two recent lectures in Chicago highlighted the centrality of "naturalism" to the ID debate. The first, on Wednesday, April 11, by University of Minnesota philosopher of biology Alan Love, focused on methodological naturalism (MN), and asked whether -- as MN's advocates argue -- the principle is necessary for scientific practice.
The second lecture, on Friday, April 13, was given by University of Wisconsin philosopher of biology Elliott Sober. He asked if the "unguided" mutations posited by current evolutionary theory entail that God was not involved in the history of life on Earth. What follows is part 1 of a report on the main lines of argument in both lectures, concluding with some commentary in response. I'll cover Alan Love's talk today, and hope to write on Elliott Sober's, in part 2, subsequently.
Alan Love, Wheaton College, April 11: "Methodological Naturalism Reconceived (or Elided)?"
AlanLoveImage.gifMethodological naturalism (MN) -- the philosophical doctrine that scientific explanations must refer only to natural causes -- is the central and most controversial concept in all discussions of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, Love said. MN must "wear a lot of hats," however. The principle has functioned as (1) an epistemological ground rule about scientific explanation, (2) an historical account concerning the emergence of professional science, (3) a fence demarcating science from theology and philosophy, and (4) a mediating concept facilitating dialogue between science and faith.
Yet MN, Love continued, represents "a paradox." While claimed by its advocates to be essential to science, MN is rarely mentioned by scientists themselves in their primary publications, or in philosophical analyses of particular sciences. "If you don't mention MN" as a practicing scientist, Love said, "no one notices." Furthermore, if one inspects leading philosophy of science journals, such as the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, or Philosophy of Science, one finds only a handful of references to MN, almost always in the context of the ID debate.
A "quick resolution" of the paradox, Love said, would hold either that MN is not essential to science (hence, MN doesn't show up where one might expect to see it), or, more plausibly, that MN is a tacit but nonetheless widely accepted rule, so ubiquitous that -- except for unusual contexts, such as the ID debate -- it doesn't need mentioning out loud.
But these quick resolutions don't work, said Love. Something akin to MN does appear to be central to modern science (see below), so we can't just wave MN off as irrelevant. On the other hand, it would be exceedingly odd if MN, claimed to be a central principle of scientific method, could function wholly out of sight, as a "subterranean" rule. How does an entirely tacit rule differ from no rule at all?
Getting Past the MN Paradox
The resolution of the paradox, Love argued, begins with realizing that MN is not a "global" ground rule demarcating science from other disciplines or practices. Such claims "are overstated," as global rules for what counts as science do not in fact exist. Scientists rarely mention MN in their publications or discussions, because their concerns are actually much more "local," turning on matters specific to, or arising within, particular sciences. Taking his lead from University of Pittsburgh philosopher of science John Norton's 2003 paper, "A Material Theory of Induction," Love suggested that trying for universally valid accounts of scientific inference, and rules like MN to demarcate such inferences, are enterprises doomed to frustration. (See also Norton's 2010 development of his critique of universal theories of induction.) Rather, material inferences in any science "are licensed by their empirical content," and this is a matter of degree, because content varies, and is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Thus, Love said, if one is looking for something playing the role of MN in any particular science, one should focus on what he called "material inferential capacities," abbreviated as MICs. MICs, rather than general formulae about induction (e.g., the so-called "scientific method"), are what scientists learn in their training, actually employ in explanation, and recognize as grounding legitimate inferences. Viewing scientific practice "close up," rather than from the abstract distance of MN "at 30,000 feet," reveals the role of discipline-specific MICs, where scientists "learn by doing" in "particular communities." These are the tools (and rules) that scientists actually recognize as relevant, and thus MICs are highly localized, not global, in form and content.
While this "local MIC" perspective surrenders any global rule of MN, Love said, it nevertheless "offers no solace to ID proponents." The latter, he said, fail to "recognize the relevant MICs of evolutionary biology," and therefore their criticisms of evolutionary theory are seen by most biologists as wrong or missing the point. The "increased precision" afforded by the MIC perspective "makes sense of scientific practice" in a way that MN does not, and moreover "circumvents worries that global MN pre-stipulates" the shape of reality.
Paul's Response: The Whole Point of MN Is to Be an All-Purpose Defeater (Global Rule of Science)
Material inferential capacities (MICs) make perfect sense to me, as descriptions of the actual content of any particular (or special) science. Learn a science, and one learns a set of specific MICs -- not "the scientific method," or the rules of science, or some other collection of abstract formulae governing proper induction.
But what MICs cannot do, in principle, is the exclusionary work of methodological naturalism (MN). That is precisely what the defenders of MN, however, intend for the principle to do: keep the bad guys, and their ideas, out of science, come what may. MN is not a neutral canon of method, which makes no claims about the true state of the world, but allows the evidence to speak for, or against, such possibilities as intelligent design. Rather, MN -- if it is going to play the role of the "fence" or "ground rule" its advocates (e.g., Pennock 2011) desire -- must make global claims about the shape of reality. This is the way the universe is; therefore, science must follow.
And MN does just that. Here's how Pennock (2011, 184) expresses the principle:
MN holds that as a principle of research we should regard the universe as a structured place that is ordered by uniform natural processes, and that scientists may not appeal to miracles or other supernatural interventions that break this presumed order.
Now, Pennock himself is quite certain that the universe indeed exists as MN describes it -- "a structured place ordered by uniform natural processes" -- so science can hardly go wrong by following MN. But, for any curious person who wonders if the universe should have a chance to speak for itself, before principles like MN exclude empirical possibilities a priori, MN can only block open inquiry. What if "uniform natural processes" did not actually cause (for instance) the origin of life? Could we discover that to be the case, if we assume MN?
Because Love's MIC perspective surrenders the global scope of MN, which is necessary to MN's role as a philosophical fence, it will allow all sorts of questions and possibilities that MN would automatically exclude. Nothing in the content of any science -- no actual MIC -- tells the investigator that the content is complete or sufficient, or what that science may stumble upon tomorrow. So, if someone asked, "Hey, in the light of these new data, may I try the idea of intelligent design?" no MIC could rule against that investigator. MICs are always based on what a science has done in its past, not what the science may try in the future.
Pennock's formulation of MN, by contrast, defines the shape of empirical reality: uniform natural processes. As such, his version of MN really does rule out ID, which of course explains why the ACLU used it at the Dover trial. Love doesn't want to legislate reality by global stipulations, but in surrendering that goal, he gives up the very reason Pennock and others push MN. In opting for the descriptive accuracy of MICs, Love yields the proscriptive role of MN that Pennock and others want.
Conclusion
Most defenders of MN say the principle is modest and neutral, shying away from the universal assertions of philosophical naturalism (PN). But is that true? A few years ago (2006, p. 344), Marcus Ross and I wrote the following:
Ask oneself a simple question. Suppose life actually were designed by a nonhuman intelligence -- would MN allow us to discover that? If the answer is no, then MN hinders scientific discovery and dictates the shape of reality as thoroughly as PN. If the answer is yes, then MN is superfluous and says nothing more than science should be empirical and testable.
MN is a rule without a decent justification. Love knows that, I think, but his MIC perspective, while illuminating, cannot take the place of MN. And thank goodness for that.
References
Pennock, Robert. 2011. Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited. Synthese 178:177-206
Ross, Marcus and Nelson, Paul. 2006. A Taxonomy of Teleology. In W. Dembski, ed., Darwin's Nemesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press)
Paul Nelson April 30, 2012 4:18 PM
Two recent lectures in Chicago highlighted the centrality of "naturalism" to the ID debate. The first, on Wednesday, April 11, by University of Minnesota philosopher of biology Alan Love, focused on methodological naturalism (MN), and asked whether -- as MN's advocates argue -- the principle is necessary for scientific practice.
The second lecture, on Friday, April 13, was given by University of Wisconsin philosopher of biology Elliott Sober. He asked if the "unguided" mutations posited by current evolutionary theory entail that God was not involved in the history of life on Earth. What follows is part 1 of a report on the main lines of argument in both lectures, concluding with some commentary in response. I'll cover Alan Love's talk today, and hope to write on Elliott Sober's, in part 2, subsequently.
Alan Love, Wheaton College, April 11: "Methodological Naturalism Reconceived (or Elided)?"
AlanLoveImage.gifMethodological naturalism (MN) -- the philosophical doctrine that scientific explanations must refer only to natural causes -- is the central and most controversial concept in all discussions of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, Love said. MN must "wear a lot of hats," however. The principle has functioned as (1) an epistemological ground rule about scientific explanation, (2) an historical account concerning the emergence of professional science, (3) a fence demarcating science from theology and philosophy, and (4) a mediating concept facilitating dialogue between science and faith.
Yet MN, Love continued, represents "a paradox." While claimed by its advocates to be essential to science, MN is rarely mentioned by scientists themselves in their primary publications, or in philosophical analyses of particular sciences. "If you don't mention MN" as a practicing scientist, Love said, "no one notices." Furthermore, if one inspects leading philosophy of science journals, such as the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, or Philosophy of Science, one finds only a handful of references to MN, almost always in the context of the ID debate.
A "quick resolution" of the paradox, Love said, would hold either that MN is not essential to science (hence, MN doesn't show up where one might expect to see it), or, more plausibly, that MN is a tacit but nonetheless widely accepted rule, so ubiquitous that -- except for unusual contexts, such as the ID debate -- it doesn't need mentioning out loud.
But these quick resolutions don't work, said Love. Something akin to MN does appear to be central to modern science (see below), so we can't just wave MN off as irrelevant. On the other hand, it would be exceedingly odd if MN, claimed to be a central principle of scientific method, could function wholly out of sight, as a "subterranean" rule. How does an entirely tacit rule differ from no rule at all?
Getting Past the MN Paradox
The resolution of the paradox, Love argued, begins with realizing that MN is not a "global" ground rule demarcating science from other disciplines or practices. Such claims "are overstated," as global rules for what counts as science do not in fact exist. Scientists rarely mention MN in their publications or discussions, because their concerns are actually much more "local," turning on matters specific to, or arising within, particular sciences. Taking his lead from University of Pittsburgh philosopher of science John Norton's 2003 paper, "A Material Theory of Induction," Love suggested that trying for universally valid accounts of scientific inference, and rules like MN to demarcate such inferences, are enterprises doomed to frustration. (See also Norton's 2010 development of his critique of universal theories of induction.) Rather, material inferences in any science "are licensed by their empirical content," and this is a matter of degree, because content varies, and is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Thus, Love said, if one is looking for something playing the role of MN in any particular science, one should focus on what he called "material inferential capacities," abbreviated as MICs. MICs, rather than general formulae about induction (e.g., the so-called "scientific method"), are what scientists learn in their training, actually employ in explanation, and recognize as grounding legitimate inferences. Viewing scientific practice "close up," rather than from the abstract distance of MN "at 30,000 feet," reveals the role of discipline-specific MICs, where scientists "learn by doing" in "particular communities." These are the tools (and rules) that scientists actually recognize as relevant, and thus MICs are highly localized, not global, in form and content.
While this "local MIC" perspective surrenders any global rule of MN, Love said, it nevertheless "offers no solace to ID proponents." The latter, he said, fail to "recognize the relevant MICs of evolutionary biology," and therefore their criticisms of evolutionary theory are seen by most biologists as wrong or missing the point. The "increased precision" afforded by the MIC perspective "makes sense of scientific practice" in a way that MN does not, and moreover "circumvents worries that global MN pre-stipulates" the shape of reality.
Paul's Response: The Whole Point of MN Is to Be an All-Purpose Defeater (Global Rule of Science)
Material inferential capacities (MICs) make perfect sense to me, as descriptions of the actual content of any particular (or special) science. Learn a science, and one learns a set of specific MICs -- not "the scientific method," or the rules of science, or some other collection of abstract formulae governing proper induction.
But what MICs cannot do, in principle, is the exclusionary work of methodological naturalism (MN). That is precisely what the defenders of MN, however, intend for the principle to do: keep the bad guys, and their ideas, out of science, come what may. MN is not a neutral canon of method, which makes no claims about the true state of the world, but allows the evidence to speak for, or against, such possibilities as intelligent design. Rather, MN -- if it is going to play the role of the "fence" or "ground rule" its advocates (e.g., Pennock 2011) desire -- must make global claims about the shape of reality. This is the way the universe is; therefore, science must follow.
And MN does just that. Here's how Pennock (2011, 184) expresses the principle:
MN holds that as a principle of research we should regard the universe as a structured place that is ordered by uniform natural processes, and that scientists may not appeal to miracles or other supernatural interventions that break this presumed order.
Now, Pennock himself is quite certain that the universe indeed exists as MN describes it -- "a structured place ordered by uniform natural processes" -- so science can hardly go wrong by following MN. But, for any curious person who wonders if the universe should have a chance to speak for itself, before principles like MN exclude empirical possibilities a priori, MN can only block open inquiry. What if "uniform natural processes" did not actually cause (for instance) the origin of life? Could we discover that to be the case, if we assume MN?
Because Love's MIC perspective surrenders the global scope of MN, which is necessary to MN's role as a philosophical fence, it will allow all sorts of questions and possibilities that MN would automatically exclude. Nothing in the content of any science -- no actual MIC -- tells the investigator that the content is complete or sufficient, or what that science may stumble upon tomorrow. So, if someone asked, "Hey, in the light of these new data, may I try the idea of intelligent design?" no MIC could rule against that investigator. MICs are always based on what a science has done in its past, not what the science may try in the future.
Pennock's formulation of MN, by contrast, defines the shape of empirical reality: uniform natural processes. As such, his version of MN really does rule out ID, which of course explains why the ACLU used it at the Dover trial. Love doesn't want to legislate reality by global stipulations, but in surrendering that goal, he gives up the very reason Pennock and others push MN. In opting for the descriptive accuracy of MICs, Love yields the proscriptive role of MN that Pennock and others want.
Conclusion
Most defenders of MN say the principle is modest and neutral, shying away from the universal assertions of philosophical naturalism (PN). But is that true? A few years ago (2006, p. 344), Marcus Ross and I wrote the following:
Ask oneself a simple question. Suppose life actually were designed by a nonhuman intelligence -- would MN allow us to discover that? If the answer is no, then MN hinders scientific discovery and dictates the shape of reality as thoroughly as PN. If the answer is yes, then MN is superfluous and says nothing more than science should be empirical and testable.
MN is a rule without a decent justification. Love knows that, I think, but his MIC perspective, while illuminating, cannot take the place of MN. And thank goodness for that.
References
Pennock, Robert. 2011. Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited. Synthese 178:177-206
Ross, Marcus and Nelson, Paul. 2006. A Taxonomy of Teleology. In W. Dembski, ed., Darwin's Nemesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press)
You just know the dice are loaded when...
The Origin of Plants Depended on "Pre-adaptation," Another Word for "Preparation"
Ann Gauger October 23, 2015 3:44 AM
One of the most difficult problems for evolutionary biologists to explain is how adaptations manage to appear at the right time for the next stage of evolution to take place. This problem was succinctly summarized by Hugo de Vries, a Dutch botanist. I paraphrase: It's not the survival of the fittest, it's the arrival of the fittest that needs explanation.
To get around the problem, current evolutionary biologists use a word that stands in for this problem: pre-adaptation. In other words, things get ready for what is to come in advance of its arrival. Here's an example. Science Daily reports:
[A] team of scientists from the John Innes Centre, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and other international collaborators, has discovered how an ancient alga was able to inhabit land, before it went on to evolve into the world's first plant and colonize the earth...
Dr. Delaux said: "At some point 450 million years ago, alga from the earth's waters splashed up on to barren land. Somehow it survived and took root, a watershed moment that kick-started the evolution of life on earth. Our discovery shows for the first time that the alga already knew how to survive on land while it was still in the water. Without the development of this pre-adapted capability in alga, the earth could be a very different place today. [Emphasis added.]
Imagine this scenario: Before plants have colonized the land 450 million years ago, the only stuff on land is an ancient kind of fungus. An ancient algal species, the precursor to modern plants, is living in the sea. For some unknown reason it develops pathways that will enable it to have a symbiotic relationship with the fungus, without which it could not survive on land.
How do we know this? The genes for the symbiotic pathway exist in the modern versions of the ancient alga.
Dr. Delaux and colleagues analyzed DNA and RNA of some of the earliest known land plants and green algae and found evidence that their shared algal ancestor living in the Earth's waters already possessed the set of genes, or symbiotic pathways, it needed to detect and interact with the beneficial AM [arbuscular mycorrhiza] fungi.
With the pathway present, when the time came and the alga splashed up on the shore, it was prepared to share resources with the fungal species that was there. Maybe it had to splash up many times before it had assembled the necessary pathway. Each time, though, it would have died without the symbiotic relationship with the fungus. It was only when the symbiotic pathway was there that the alga could survive on land.
It's difficult to explain how a pathway needed to survive could develop piecemeal, when there is no benefit until the whole thing is assembled. (That's an understatement.) Perhaps it was using the pathway for something else, some would say, and it just happened to provide the means for symbiosis. We just happen to be on the lucky world where the pathway for symbiosis was assembled.
I would tend to discount this pre-adaptationist story (for the original paper go here) because it is so unlikely on Darwinian grounds, were I not an intelligent design proponent. There are numerous other examples that parallel this one, though. We find pre-adapted genes in animals that never have developed the body plans or structures that require those genes. What are they doing there?
When organisms develop the genes and pathways their descendants will use at some future time, before they need them for that particular thing, it's called pre-adaptation, exaptation, or co-option. Whatever you call it, it's either a directed process or an extremely lucky one. Evidence of directed evolution, planning, or any kind of foresight is inimical to Darwinism, so perhaps it's not surprising that the name pre-adaptation is assigned, and it's left at that. But foresight is exactly what we expect from designed processes. Pre-adaptation is another word for preparation -- something all of us should recognize as a hallmark of design.
Ann Gauger October 23, 2015 3:44 AM
One of the most difficult problems for evolutionary biologists to explain is how adaptations manage to appear at the right time for the next stage of evolution to take place. This problem was succinctly summarized by Hugo de Vries, a Dutch botanist. I paraphrase: It's not the survival of the fittest, it's the arrival of the fittest that needs explanation.
To get around the problem, current evolutionary biologists use a word that stands in for this problem: pre-adaptation. In other words, things get ready for what is to come in advance of its arrival. Here's an example. Science Daily reports:
[A] team of scientists from the John Innes Centre, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and other international collaborators, has discovered how an ancient alga was able to inhabit land, before it went on to evolve into the world's first plant and colonize the earth...
Dr. Delaux said: "At some point 450 million years ago, alga from the earth's waters splashed up on to barren land. Somehow it survived and took root, a watershed moment that kick-started the evolution of life on earth. Our discovery shows for the first time that the alga already knew how to survive on land while it was still in the water. Without the development of this pre-adapted capability in alga, the earth could be a very different place today. [Emphasis added.]
Imagine this scenario: Before plants have colonized the land 450 million years ago, the only stuff on land is an ancient kind of fungus. An ancient algal species, the precursor to modern plants, is living in the sea. For some unknown reason it develops pathways that will enable it to have a symbiotic relationship with the fungus, without which it could not survive on land.
How do we know this? The genes for the symbiotic pathway exist in the modern versions of the ancient alga.
Dr. Delaux and colleagues analyzed DNA and RNA of some of the earliest known land plants and green algae and found evidence that their shared algal ancestor living in the Earth's waters already possessed the set of genes, or symbiotic pathways, it needed to detect and interact with the beneficial AM [arbuscular mycorrhiza] fungi.
With the pathway present, when the time came and the alga splashed up on the shore, it was prepared to share resources with the fungal species that was there. Maybe it had to splash up many times before it had assembled the necessary pathway. Each time, though, it would have died without the symbiotic relationship with the fungus. It was only when the symbiotic pathway was there that the alga could survive on land.
It's difficult to explain how a pathway needed to survive could develop piecemeal, when there is no benefit until the whole thing is assembled. (That's an understatement.) Perhaps it was using the pathway for something else, some would say, and it just happened to provide the means for symbiosis. We just happen to be on the lucky world where the pathway for symbiosis was assembled.
I would tend to discount this pre-adaptationist story (for the original paper go here) because it is so unlikely on Darwinian grounds, were I not an intelligent design proponent. There are numerous other examples that parallel this one, though. We find pre-adapted genes in animals that never have developed the body plans or structures that require those genes. What are they doing there?
When organisms develop the genes and pathways their descendants will use at some future time, before they need them for that particular thing, it's called pre-adaptation, exaptation, or co-option. Whatever you call it, it's either a directed process or an extremely lucky one. Evidence of directed evolution, planning, or any kind of foresight is inimical to Darwinism, so perhaps it's not surprising that the name pre-adaptation is assigned, and it's left at that. But foresight is exactly what we expect from designed processes. Pre-adaptation is another word for preparation -- something all of us should recognize as a hallmark of design.
The Watchtower Society's Commentary on the writings of the apostle Peter.
PETER, LETTERS OF:
Two inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures composed by the apostle Peter, who identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; compare 2Pe 3:1.) Additional internal evidence unmistakably points to Peter as the writer. He speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9) And, as is evident from John 21:18, 19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14) The difference in style between the two letters may be attributed to the fact that Peter used Silvanus (Silas) for writing the first letter but apparently did not do so when writing his second letter. (1Pe 5:12) Both were general letters, evidently directed to Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. The first letter is specifically addressed to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—regions of Asia Minor.—1Pe 1:1; 2:10; 2Pe 1:1; 3:1; compare Ac 2:5, 9, 10.
The letters of Peter agree fully with other Bible books in stressing right conduct and its rewards and also in quoting from them as the authoritative Word of God. Quotations are made from Genesis (18:12; 1Pe 3:6), Exodus (19:5, 6; 1Pe 2:9), Leviticus (11:44; 1Pe 1:16), Psalms (34:12-16; 118:22; 1Pe 3:10-12; 2:7), Proverbs (11:31 [LXX]; 26:11; 1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:22), and Isaiah (8:14; 28:16; 40:6-8; 53:5; 1Pe 2:8; 2:6; 1:24, 25; 2:24). Scriptural prophecy is shown to be the product of God’s spirit. (2Pe 1:20, 21; compare 2Ti 3:16.) God’s promise concerning new heavens and a new earth is repeated. (2Pe 3:13; Isa 65:17; 66:22; Re 21:1) The parallels between 2 Peter (2:4-18; 3:3) and Jude (5-13, 17, 18) evidently indicate that the disciple Jude accepted Peter’s second letter as inspired. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the letters of the apostle Paul are classified by Peter with “the rest of the Scriptures.”—2Pe 3:15, 16.
Time of Writing. From the tone of the letters, it appears that they were written prior to the outbreak of Nero’s persecution in 64 C.E. The fact that Mark was with Peter would seem to place the time of composition of the first letter between 62 and 64 C.E. (1Pe 5:13) Earlier, during the apostle Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome (c. 59-61 C.E.), Mark was there, and when Paul was imprisoned for a second time at Rome (c. 65 C.E.), he requested that Timothy and Mark join him. (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11) Likely Peter wrote his second letter not long after his first, or about 64 C.E.
Written From Babylon. According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while at Babylon. (1Pe 5:13) Possibly also from there he wrote his second letter. Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Ga 2:7-9) There was a large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.
First Peter. The Christians to whom the apostle Peter addressed his first letter were experiencing severe trials. (1Pe 1:6) Additionally, “the end of all things” had drawn close—evidently the end of the Jewish system of things foretold by Jesus. (Compare Mr 13:1-4; 1Th 2:14-16; Heb 9:26.) It was, therefore, a time for them to be “vigilant with a view to prayers.” (1Pe 4:7; compare Mt 26:40-45.) They also needed encouragement to endure faithfully, the very encouragement provided by the apostle.
Repeatedly, Peter reminded fellow Christians of the blessings they enjoyed. Because of God’s mercy, they had received a new birth to a living hope, giving them reason for rejoicing. (1Pe 1:3-9) They had been bought with Christ’s precious blood. (1Pe 1:18, 19) Through the baptismal arrangement, they had received a good conscience and would continue to enjoy such by living in harmony with what their water baptism symbolized. (1Pe 3:21–4:6) As living stones, they were being built on Christ Jesus to become a spiritual house or temple. They were “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession.”—1Pe 2:4-10.
In view of what God and his Son had done in their behalf, Christians, as Peter showed, had reason to endure sufferings and to maintain fine conduct. They were to expect sufferings, for “even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones.” (1Pe 3:17, 18) Sharing in the sufferings of Christ was in itself a reason for rejoicing, as it would result in being overjoyed at the revelation of Christ’s glory. To be reproached for the name of Christ constituted an evidence that a person had God’s spirit. (1Pe 4:12-14) The trials themselves resulted in faith of tested quality, which was needed for salvation. (1Pe 1:6-9) Moreover, by faithfully enduring, they would continue to experience God’s care. He would make them firm and strong.—1Pe 5:6-10.
However, as Peter emphasized, Christians were never to suffer because of being lawbreakers. (1Pe 4:15-19) Theirs was to be exemplary conduct, which would serve to silence ignorant talk against them. (1Pe 2:12, 15, 16) This involved every aspect of a Christian’s life—his relationship to governmental authority, to masters, to family members, and to Christian brothers. (1Pe 2:13–3:9) It called for right use of the organs of speech, holding a good conscience (1Pe 3:10-22), and remaining free from the defiling practices of the nations. (1Pe 4:1-3) Inside the congregation, older men serving as shepherds were not to lord it over the sheep, but were to do their work willingly and eagerly. The younger men were to be in subjection to the older men. (1Pe 5:1-5) All Christians were to be hospitable, seek to build one another up, have intense love for one another, and gird themselves with lowliness of mind.—1Pe 4:7-11; 5:5.
Second Peter. The purpose of Peter’s second letter was to assist Christians to make their calling and choosing sure and to avoid being led astray by false teachers and ungodly men within the congregation itself. (2Pe 1:10, 11; 3:14-18) Christians are urged to have faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godly devotion, brotherly affection, and love (2Pe 1:5-11), and they are admonished to pay attention to the inspired “prophetic word.” (2Pe 1:16-21) Examples of past executions of Jehovah’s judgments against ungodly persons are cited to show that those abandoning the path of righteousness will not escape God’s wrath. (2Pe 2:1-22) Despite what ridiculers might say in “the last days,” the coming of Jehovah’s day, a day for the execution of ungodly men, is just as certain as what befell the world of Noah’s day. Also, God’s promise of new heavens and a new earth is sure and should inspire diligent efforts to be found unblemished from God’s standpoint.—2Pe 3:1-18.
[Box on page 622]
HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST PETER
A letter encouraging Christians to be vigilant and to endure faithfully despite trials
Written in Babylon by the apostle Peter using Silvanus as a secretary, about 62-64 C.E.
Christians should act in a manner worthy of their wonderful hope
“The ones chosen” have been given a living hope, an incorruptible inheritance in heaven (1:1-5)
They have faith in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls—something that the prophets of old and even the angels were intensely interested in (1:8-12)
Hence, they should brace up their minds for activity; they should shun their former desires, be holy, and conduct themselves with godly fear and brotherly love (1:13-25)
They must form a longing for the ‘milk of the word’ in order to grow to salvation (2:1-3)
They are a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, built on the foundation of Christ; they must therefore offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (2:4-8)
As a people for special possession, they declare abroad the excellencies of their God and conduct themselves in a manner that honors him (2:9-12)
Relationships with fellow humans should be based on godly principles
Be submissive to human rulers; love the brothers; fear God (2:13-17)
House servants must be in subjection to their masters even when these are unreasonable; Jesus set a good example of patient endurance of evil (2:18-25)
Wives should be subject to their husbands; if the husband is an unbeliever, the wife’s fine conduct might win him over (3:1-6)
Husbands are to assign honor to their wives “as to a weaker vessel” (3:7)
All Christians should show fellow feeling toward others, not repaying injury for injury, but pursuing peace (3:8-12)
The end of all things has drawn close, so Christians should be sound in mind and vigilant with a view to prayers, should have intense love for one another and use their gifts to honor God (4:7-11)
Elders should be eager to shepherd the flock of God; young men must remain in subjection to older men; all should manifest lowliness of mind (5:1-5)
Faithful endurance of suffering results in blessings
Christians can rejoice even under grievous trials, since the quality of their faith will be made manifest (1:6, 7)
They should not suffer because of wrongdoing; if they suffer for righteousness’ sake, they should glorify God and not feel shame; it is a time of judgment (3:13-17; 4:15-19)
Christ suffered and died in the flesh to lead us to God; hence, we no longer live according to fleshly desires—even if fleshly people abuse us because we are different (3:18–4:6)
If a Christian endures trials faithfully, he will share in great rejoicing at Jesus’ revelation as well as be assured that he has God’s spirit right now (4:12-14)
Let each one humble himself under God’s hand and throw his anxiety upon Him; let him take his stand against Satan, with confidence that God himself will make His servants strong (5:6-10)
[Box on page 623]
HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND PETER
A letter encouraging Christians to exert themselves and to cling to the prophetic word; it contains powerful warnings against apostasy
Written perhaps from Babylon about 64 C.E.
Christians must exert themselves and trust in the prophetic word
God has freely given all things that concern life and godly devotion; in response Christians must exert themselves to develop faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godly devotion, brotherly affection, and love—qualities that will make them active and fruitful (1:1-15)
Christians must pay attention to the divinely inspired prophetic word; when Peter saw Jesus transfigured and heard God speak in the mountain, the prophetic word was made more sure (1:16-21)
Guard against false teachers and other corrupt persons; Jehovah’s day is coming
False teachers will infiltrate the congregation, bringing in destructive sects (2:1-3)
Jehovah is sure to judge these apostates, just as he judged the disobedient angels, the ungodly world in Noah’s day, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4-10)
Such false teachers despise authority, stain the good name of Christians by excesses and immorality, entice the weak, and promise freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption (2:10-19)
These are worse off now than when they did not know about Jesus Christ (2:20-22)
Beware of ridiculers in the last days who will mock the message about Jesus’ promised presence; they forget that the God who purposes to destroy this system of things already destroyed the world before the Flood (3:1-7)
Do not confuse God’s patience with slowness—he is patient because he wants men to repent; nevertheless, this system of things will be destroyed in Jehovah’s day, and a righteous new heavens and earth will replace it (3:8-13)
Christians must do their utmost to be “spotless and unblemished and in peace”; then they will not be misled by false teachers but will grow in undeserved kindness and knowledge of Christ (3:14-18)
Two inspired letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures composed by the apostle Peter, who identifies himself as the writer in the opening words of each letter. (1Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; compare 2Pe 3:1.) Additional internal evidence unmistakably points to Peter as the writer. He speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege shared only by Peter, James, and John. (2Pe 1:16-18; Mt 17:1-9) And, as is evident from John 21:18, 19, Peter alone could have said: “The putting off of my tabernacle is soon to be, just as also our Lord Jesus Christ signified to me.” (2Pe 1:14) The difference in style between the two letters may be attributed to the fact that Peter used Silvanus (Silas) for writing the first letter but apparently did not do so when writing his second letter. (1Pe 5:12) Both were general letters, evidently directed to Jewish and non-Jewish Christians. The first letter is specifically addressed to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—regions of Asia Minor.—1Pe 1:1; 2:10; 2Pe 1:1; 3:1; compare Ac 2:5, 9, 10.
The letters of Peter agree fully with other Bible books in stressing right conduct and its rewards and also in quoting from them as the authoritative Word of God. Quotations are made from Genesis (18:12; 1Pe 3:6), Exodus (19:5, 6; 1Pe 2:9), Leviticus (11:44; 1Pe 1:16), Psalms (34:12-16; 118:22; 1Pe 3:10-12; 2:7), Proverbs (11:31 [LXX]; 26:11; 1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:22), and Isaiah (8:14; 28:16; 40:6-8; 53:5; 1Pe 2:8; 2:6; 1:24, 25; 2:24). Scriptural prophecy is shown to be the product of God’s spirit. (2Pe 1:20, 21; compare 2Ti 3:16.) God’s promise concerning new heavens and a new earth is repeated. (2Pe 3:13; Isa 65:17; 66:22; Re 21:1) The parallels between 2 Peter (2:4-18; 3:3) and Jude (5-13, 17, 18) evidently indicate that the disciple Jude accepted Peter’s second letter as inspired. Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the letters of the apostle Paul are classified by Peter with “the rest of the Scriptures.”—2Pe 3:15, 16.
Time of Writing. From the tone of the letters, it appears that they were written prior to the outbreak of Nero’s persecution in 64 C.E. The fact that Mark was with Peter would seem to place the time of composition of the first letter between 62 and 64 C.E. (1Pe 5:13) Earlier, during the apostle Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome (c. 59-61 C.E.), Mark was there, and when Paul was imprisoned for a second time at Rome (c. 65 C.E.), he requested that Timothy and Mark join him. (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11) Likely Peter wrote his second letter not long after his first, or about 64 C.E.
Written From Babylon. According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while at Babylon. (1Pe 5:13) Possibly also from there he wrote his second letter. Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Ga 2:7-9) There was a large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.
The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.
First Peter. The Christians to whom the apostle Peter addressed his first letter were experiencing severe trials. (1Pe 1:6) Additionally, “the end of all things” had drawn close—evidently the end of the Jewish system of things foretold by Jesus. (Compare Mr 13:1-4; 1Th 2:14-16; Heb 9:26.) It was, therefore, a time for them to be “vigilant with a view to prayers.” (1Pe 4:7; compare Mt 26:40-45.) They also needed encouragement to endure faithfully, the very encouragement provided by the apostle.
Repeatedly, Peter reminded fellow Christians of the blessings they enjoyed. Because of God’s mercy, they had received a new birth to a living hope, giving them reason for rejoicing. (1Pe 1:3-9) They had been bought with Christ’s precious blood. (1Pe 1:18, 19) Through the baptismal arrangement, they had received a good conscience and would continue to enjoy such by living in harmony with what their water baptism symbolized. (1Pe 3:21–4:6) As living stones, they were being built on Christ Jesus to become a spiritual house or temple. They were “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession.”—1Pe 2:4-10.
In view of what God and his Son had done in their behalf, Christians, as Peter showed, had reason to endure sufferings and to maintain fine conduct. They were to expect sufferings, for “even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones.” (1Pe 3:17, 18) Sharing in the sufferings of Christ was in itself a reason for rejoicing, as it would result in being overjoyed at the revelation of Christ’s glory. To be reproached for the name of Christ constituted an evidence that a person had God’s spirit. (1Pe 4:12-14) The trials themselves resulted in faith of tested quality, which was needed for salvation. (1Pe 1:6-9) Moreover, by faithfully enduring, they would continue to experience God’s care. He would make them firm and strong.—1Pe 5:6-10.
However, as Peter emphasized, Christians were never to suffer because of being lawbreakers. (1Pe 4:15-19) Theirs was to be exemplary conduct, which would serve to silence ignorant talk against them. (1Pe 2:12, 15, 16) This involved every aspect of a Christian’s life—his relationship to governmental authority, to masters, to family members, and to Christian brothers. (1Pe 2:13–3:9) It called for right use of the organs of speech, holding a good conscience (1Pe 3:10-22), and remaining free from the defiling practices of the nations. (1Pe 4:1-3) Inside the congregation, older men serving as shepherds were not to lord it over the sheep, but were to do their work willingly and eagerly. The younger men were to be in subjection to the older men. (1Pe 5:1-5) All Christians were to be hospitable, seek to build one another up, have intense love for one another, and gird themselves with lowliness of mind.—1Pe 4:7-11; 5:5.
Second Peter. The purpose of Peter’s second letter was to assist Christians to make their calling and choosing sure and to avoid being led astray by false teachers and ungodly men within the congregation itself. (2Pe 1:10, 11; 3:14-18) Christians are urged to have faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godly devotion, brotherly affection, and love (2Pe 1:5-11), and they are admonished to pay attention to the inspired “prophetic word.” (2Pe 1:16-21) Examples of past executions of Jehovah’s judgments against ungodly persons are cited to show that those abandoning the path of righteousness will not escape God’s wrath. (2Pe 2:1-22) Despite what ridiculers might say in “the last days,” the coming of Jehovah’s day, a day for the execution of ungodly men, is just as certain as what befell the world of Noah’s day. Also, God’s promise of new heavens and a new earth is sure and should inspire diligent efforts to be found unblemished from God’s standpoint.—2Pe 3:1-18.
[Box on page 622]
HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST PETER
A letter encouraging Christians to be vigilant and to endure faithfully despite trials
Written in Babylon by the apostle Peter using Silvanus as a secretary, about 62-64 C.E.
Christians should act in a manner worthy of their wonderful hope
“The ones chosen” have been given a living hope, an incorruptible inheritance in heaven (1:1-5)
They have faith in Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls—something that the prophets of old and even the angels were intensely interested in (1:8-12)
Hence, they should brace up their minds for activity; they should shun their former desires, be holy, and conduct themselves with godly fear and brotherly love (1:13-25)
They must form a longing for the ‘milk of the word’ in order to grow to salvation (2:1-3)
They are a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, built on the foundation of Christ; they must therefore offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (2:4-8)
As a people for special possession, they declare abroad the excellencies of their God and conduct themselves in a manner that honors him (2:9-12)
Relationships with fellow humans should be based on godly principles
Be submissive to human rulers; love the brothers; fear God (2:13-17)
House servants must be in subjection to their masters even when these are unreasonable; Jesus set a good example of patient endurance of evil (2:18-25)
Wives should be subject to their husbands; if the husband is an unbeliever, the wife’s fine conduct might win him over (3:1-6)
Husbands are to assign honor to their wives “as to a weaker vessel” (3:7)
All Christians should show fellow feeling toward others, not repaying injury for injury, but pursuing peace (3:8-12)
The end of all things has drawn close, so Christians should be sound in mind and vigilant with a view to prayers, should have intense love for one another and use their gifts to honor God (4:7-11)
Elders should be eager to shepherd the flock of God; young men must remain in subjection to older men; all should manifest lowliness of mind (5:1-5)
Faithful endurance of suffering results in blessings
Christians can rejoice even under grievous trials, since the quality of their faith will be made manifest (1:6, 7)
They should not suffer because of wrongdoing; if they suffer for righteousness’ sake, they should glorify God and not feel shame; it is a time of judgment (3:13-17; 4:15-19)
Christ suffered and died in the flesh to lead us to God; hence, we no longer live according to fleshly desires—even if fleshly people abuse us because we are different (3:18–4:6)
If a Christian endures trials faithfully, he will share in great rejoicing at Jesus’ revelation as well as be assured that he has God’s spirit right now (4:12-14)
Let each one humble himself under God’s hand and throw his anxiety upon Him; let him take his stand against Satan, with confidence that God himself will make His servants strong (5:6-10)
[Box on page 623]
HIGHLIGHTS OF SECOND PETER
A letter encouraging Christians to exert themselves and to cling to the prophetic word; it contains powerful warnings against apostasy
Written perhaps from Babylon about 64 C.E.
Christians must exert themselves and trust in the prophetic word
God has freely given all things that concern life and godly devotion; in response Christians must exert themselves to develop faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, endurance, godly devotion, brotherly affection, and love—qualities that will make them active and fruitful (1:1-15)
Christians must pay attention to the divinely inspired prophetic word; when Peter saw Jesus transfigured and heard God speak in the mountain, the prophetic word was made more sure (1:16-21)
Guard against false teachers and other corrupt persons; Jehovah’s day is coming
False teachers will infiltrate the congregation, bringing in destructive sects (2:1-3)
Jehovah is sure to judge these apostates, just as he judged the disobedient angels, the ungodly world in Noah’s day, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:4-10)
Such false teachers despise authority, stain the good name of Christians by excesses and immorality, entice the weak, and promise freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption (2:10-19)
These are worse off now than when they did not know about Jesus Christ (2:20-22)
Beware of ridiculers in the last days who will mock the message about Jesus’ promised presence; they forget that the God who purposes to destroy this system of things already destroyed the world before the Flood (3:1-7)
Do not confuse God’s patience with slowness—he is patient because he wants men to repent; nevertheless, this system of things will be destroyed in Jehovah’s day, and a righteous new heavens and earth will replace it (3:8-13)
Christians must do their utmost to be “spotless and unblemished and in peace”; then they will not be misled by false teachers but will grow in undeserved kindness and knowledge of Christ (3:14-18)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)