This is very simple. The scientist is referring to hard atheism (i.e. an explicit claim that no gods exist), which is indeed inconsistent with the scientific method.

The correct position is soft (or agnostic) atheism (i.e. a non-acceptance of the god claim, subject to change with further evidence). This position is completely consistent with the scientific method.

We begin with the null hypothesis (e.g. a flat Earth) and replace it with an alternative hypothesis (e.g. a spherical Earth) if there is sufficient supporting evidence. I posted this video once before, which is an excellent explanation.

Everyone has an opinion.

I had never heard of the Templeton Prize and its origins.
Omniscient Wikipedia states: The prize was originally awarded to people working in the field of religion (Mother Teresa was the first winner), but in the 1980s the scope broadened to include people working at the intersection of science and religion.
So obviously the foundation wants to find some scientist to make the whole thing look more neutral. Its a marketing exercise to take a willing scientist.
The judges award the prize to a living person who, in the estimation of the judges, "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension …"
It doesn't specifically say human life's spiritual dimension.

This is a religious prize. The affirmation on the foundation's website:

"Men and women of any creed, profession, or national origin may be nominated for the Templeton Prize. The distinguished roster of previous winners includes representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, **but also others as well."

The sequence of the lineup: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism ... and then as an afterthought: "but also others as well" Sounds like a tautology.

"Templeton Prize, formerly Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion and Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realities, "
It is a prize for the advancement of religion, nothing to do with science.

You lost me at “Templeton Prize winner.”

Contorted reasoning.

The New Atheists make a lot of good points and I've learned a lot listening to them.
That said, the scientist and you are saying the exact same thing I've been saying since I came on here:
atheism is bogus.
I never thought of it precisely as "unscientific," but of course it is.
It's also extremely obnoxious.
Anyway, THANK YOU for sharing that.
Now maybe our distant cousins will learn a little humility and finally realize the vast DIFFERENCE between agnosticism and atheism, and stop all the ceaseless, eternal arguments with agnostics about it.
If they want to be "sure" about the non-existence of any order, pattern, coherent direction in the material world, fine.
But I'm not.
Those simple two facts speak VOLUMES about our relative perspectives: it seems like almost a trivial difference until you actually THINK about what it means about our respective worldviews, the difference between thinking:

1. life is meaningless, and
2. maybe life ISN'T meaningless.

That's probably why atheists are such crabapples about everthing, while agnostics are so cheerful and happy!

Thanks again.

P.S. You have to know and be prepared for the inevitable firestorm you have now provoked. I do it sometimes and sit back and wait for the wave upon wave of atheistic hate to wash over me!
In this sense they are just as bad (or worse) as an offended Christian or Muslim...how DARE they challenge the absolute TRUTH. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sickening.

He makes a good point the more you learn the more you realize what you don't know quantum physics is a example outcome can be influenced by the observer figure that one out

I appreciate what he has to say here.

stated perfectly. brilliant!

I concur with him regarding that science and knowledge have limits. I do not agree with his defintion of the limits or the relationship to sprituality.

First off, IMO the limits surrounding science has little to with the ability to advance scientific discovery, invention relating to that discovery (technology) or developing means for advancing either. IMO the limitations comes in the ability to measure the impact or consequences acquired from the new knowledge of our inventions. Yes, we can do it, but should we do it?

Humans, with the exception of the astronauts, are limited in their world view and frame of references. Being confined to this planet, the totality of our experiences from which understanding can be drawn is limited. Our paradigm of existence is therefore limited. Consequently we make decisions based on that paradigm and as history has demonstrated, we make the same errors in judgement repeatedly.

Humans are a relatively young species. We have not been around long enough to have been able to expand our philosophical horizons much beyond our early sapian beginnings. Yes we have substantially more content and knowledge, but like our early sapian bretheren, we are still limited by our world and its experiential limitations. The exception may be the astronauts. We lack the emotional maturity that allows us as a species to comprehend and temper our intellectual capability. It has nothing to do with spirituality unless you want call our naivete spritual.

It's super funny how hard people try to avoid the label of atheist.

How many times have we seen people confuse gnostic atheism for all atheism while calling themselves agnostic?

At this point I have to assume it's a purposeful misunderstanding to avoid the dirty "A" label.

Lack of belief does not imply certainty. I have no evidence unicorns exist, therefore I do not believe they do. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm open to the idea, show me the evidence.

Here is an excellent response to Marcelo Gleiser's feelings about atheism by a scientist respected by scientists; which will likely be decried pejoratively as "scientism" by some.

[whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com]

Also, the pursuit of Templeton Prize does matter. It is specifically set up to lead the scientists vying for the big cash prize money to come to certain and specific conclusions with regards to their research.

The moment I see mention of the Templeton Foundation, I will turn to something else.

[journals.sagepub.com]

"The Foundation's organizational structure and the awarding of its prizes appears to be rife with cronyism."

I totally agree. I've always argued this.

An excellent article!

He is simply stating that it is ridiculous to think anyone knows everything about anything and I absolutely concur.

I usually refer to myself as an atheist, though I am technically agnostic. The term atheist is used for simplicity but really only means that I reject the notion of a sky daddy or similar ideas. It is just easier to explain and serves as sort of a short hand. I am quite happy to call myself an agnostic and quite comfortable acknowledging the incredible limitations of my, and humankind's, knowledge, and the likelihood that the limit is permanent (for how could we possibly know there is not more to know). IMHO, agnostic is the only real position to have. To declare absolute knowledge of anything is dishonest.

I am often surprised by the irrational close-mindedness of some atheists and the often vicious attacks they can make against anyone who is not in strict accord with their views.

I wonder if this article is upsetting more because the scientist received an award from the Templeton Foundation that it is about his statements.

And I wonder what the reaction would have been if the scientist was Einstein, instead of Gleiser? After all, what this guy is saying is pretty much what Einstein has said.

Saying that he is against atheism is not the same as saying that he believes in a god.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for Marcelo Gleiser, and that is based on his deep awareness and reverence for the dazzling, mysterious reality in which we find ourselves. I am on board with his views 100%.

All this argument about belief vs. disbelief entirely misses the point. The concept of belief/disbelief has no meaning if you don’t know anything. Gleiser puts it like this: “It’s a declaration [atheism]. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” Gleiser clearly recognizes the limits of science, and he knows that in the face of the staggering implications of the mystery of existence belief and disbelief are not appropriate.

If you previously believed in old religious myths it makes perfect sense to say that you are now an atheist and do not believe those myths. But you have no basis for denying ultimate reality beyond the world of our superficial space/time/matter model of the senses. Because some people have wrongly described something, that does not mean the thing doesn’t exist.

Our very notion of existence is sham from the start, and that is science, not woo. It certainly seems presumptuous to me for us to be making claims about existence when we have no idea of who or what we ourselves are.

Must have something to do with conscious awareness, itself a profound mystery.

I agree with you and Dr. Gleiser when you say atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in one small sense because you can't confirm or falsify anything without evidence according to the scientific method. I will stipulate here that all religious statements held as natural facts, which are known to me, have been falsified by science except two. The two remaining inconclusive facts are as follows:

1. The natural (vs intelligent) origin of the universe can neither be confirmed or falsified at this time.

2. The concept that our current natural exitence has a serial (or parallel) counterpart can neither be confirmed or falsified at this time.

Therefore any belieif (or disbelief) regarding these subjects is unscientific. The correct scientific answer regarding these subjects is "I don't know at this time". With that said, I disagree with Dr. Gleiser's answer to question seven when he stated "This whole notion of finality and final ideas is, to me, just an attempt to turn science into a religious system, which is something I disagree with profoundly." I don't understand how he came to the conclusion that the scientific method has a "finality" mechanism. I understand the scientific method to be constructed with eternal curiosity. I'm also puzzled why he thinks curiosity is the sole basis for spirituality because he didn't qualify this statement with consilience or abductive reasoning.

Since you have declared that Dr. Gleiser thinks exactly like you, would you care to elaborate on his statements?

Very dependent on definitions. This guy speaks as if atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. At the heart of it though, I agree with what he is saying even though his word usage differs from mine.

Atheism is just an answer to a question, & question is do you believe in a anthropomorphic personal God or gods. That's it atheism is not proclaiming that there are no gods it's just the answer to the question do you believe in an anthropomorphic magical personal God.
If the answer is yes you are theist if the answer is no you are atheist. That is it no magic no bullshit!
You say there is ar god

I couldn't agree with him more. I say it now, I've said it a hundred times in the past and I will continue to say it, I am an agnostic because it is inconsistent with science to declare to be an atheist. I cannot prove there is not a god. I cannot prove a negative. There is no evidence of a god but that doesn't mean there's not one and thus I am agnostic. I will say this, if there is a god, he is a prick!

Funny how a sensible comment about the scientific method espoused by many non-scientists is derided.

The reference in the title is about non-application of the scientific method that many commentators engage in when supporting atheism.

The physicist here is pointing out that no evidence doesn’t mean no existence, just that the hypothesis has not been proven one way or the other.

You people split hairs over fairy tale bullshit. this is useless.