As recipients of several peer-reviewed grants from the John Templeton Foundation over the past decade, we agree with other recipients who report that the foundation has never sought to interfere with their grant-funded projects (Nature 470, 323–325; 2011).

For those who think that this grant-giving body should not have funded some projects, we might say the same about all the other agencies that have funded our research in biomedical science and geophysics. Receiving a grant does not entail accepting the worth of all the other grants given by the same body.

As far as the mingling of scientific and religious language is concerned, we agree that this is a justifiable concern. In the United Kingdom, the Faraday Institute (our institution) is well known for its criticism of both creationism and intelligent design. Attempts to introduce theological language into the practice of science is as damaging for theology as it is for science. Each academic discipline has its own specialized language and its own criteria for justifying its claims; mixing them only creates confusion.

However, we disagree with the scientists you cite who oppose any kind of interdisciplinary engagement between science and religion, or who maintain that they are in conflict. Given that almost all organized science education in Europe was carried out by religious institutions for many centuries, and that the premises and practices of science have deep theological roots, such a stance is implausible. The world is as religious as it has ever been — perhaps more so. The scientific community is often embedded in highly religious societies, the United States being a prime example. Friendly dialogue is a wiser strategy than aloof isolationism.