To be unprovable in principle, and self-evidentally so

The Cambridge University cosmologist John D Barrow died late last year, and I have just read something that he wrote that has significance because of its relevancy beyond his own field. His statement shows his deep thought relating to the interface between the search to know God and the scientific enterprise.

His statement came as part of the 2005 Edge.org "big question", which was: "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Unlike many others', Barrow's answer was short but pithy. He submitted this statement:

That our universe is infinite in size, finite in age, and just one among many. Not only can I not prove it but I believe that these statements will prove to be unprovable in principle and we will eventually hold that principle to be self-evident.

John D Barrow

Of course, it's the second sentence that holds most significance for those who are dismayed at the adversary nature of science and religion, when science is reductionist on the basis of what is material or physical when it comes to evidence for God, the mind and will (or the soul), and - on the oposing side -  religious fundamentalists (and not all believers) who refuse to recognise well-established scientific findings.  

"Unprovable in principle and ... [holding] that principle to be self-evident." This has echoes of Stephen Jay Gould's principle of Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) of 1997: "Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve."

Simply put Barrow might say, for example, that science will never be able to prove the source or dimensions of the transphysical mind, so it should stick with the facts concerning the material or quantifiable, such as the body and brain, or even the size and number of how many universes there might be around us. 

In fact, Barrow did try to illuminate areas that would be unprovable, and met knockbacks for that effort from rigid colleagues. 

However, Professor Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University, had this to say in his Scientific American tribute to Barrow: "A truly great scientist not only makes significant technical contributions but also reshapes a discipline’s conceptual landscape through a commanding depth and breadth of vision."  And Barrow's vision allowed him to be creative within physics:

The centerpiece of this approach was a remarkable book published in 1986 and co-authored with physicist Frank Tipler entitled The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It built on the recognition that if the initial state of the universe or the fundamental constants of physics had deviated—in some cases, by just a tiny amount—from the values we observe, the universe would not be suitable for life. The book is a detailed and extensive compilation of such felicitous biofriendly “coincidences,” and it became a canonical reference text for a generation of physicists. It also provoked something of a backlash for flirting with notions of cosmic purpose and straying too close to theology in some people’s eyes. Nevertheless, its style of “anthropic” reasoning subsequently became a familiar part of the theorist’s arsenal, albeit a still contentious one.

From this summary above we see that even in science there are approaches that are shunned simply because they are not in fashion given the prejudices of the elite of the field, without regard to whether the new ideas are intellectually sound or not. Barrow was strong enough to forge ahead:

His adventurous choices of research problems typified Barrow’s intellectual style, which was to challenge the hidden assumptions underpinning cherished mainstream theories. Fundamental problems in physics and cosmology may appear intractable, he reasoned, because we are thinking about them the wrong way. It was a mode of thought that resonated with many colleagues, this writer included, who are drawn to reflect on the deepest questions of existence.

Perhaps Barrow's success arose because of the breadth of his interests. His was not a blinkered existence and that allowed his science to range widely and appreciate insights from beyond the confines of the material world. Davies describes this element in Barrow's life and work:

Barrow’s scholarship and writing extended to art theory, musicology, history, philosophy and religion—a grasp of human culture aptly recognized by an invitation to deliver the prestigious Centenary Gifford Lectures at the University of Glasgow in 1989 and also by the 2006 Templeton Prize [for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realities]. These acknowledgments were in addition to many notable scientific and academic honors, including being made a Fellow of the Royal Society.

To conclude, the Edge question for in 2005 was: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? Answers were given by 120 scientists and intellectuals. Each expressed the fact that they believed something but could not prove it. That humility as to the limits at any one time of science and technology is welcome. 

[] Those interested in exploring the evidence for the existence of the mind, our transcendental or transphysical nature (our "soul") should avail themselves of the resources at the Magis Center. 

[] Subscribe to my Substack newsletter and website in order to receive notification of new posts. Subscription is free!