Sir

There is no need for Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne (Nature 454, 1049; 2008) to be “perplexed” by your Editorial concerning the funding of science and religion ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253–254; 2008). As their Correspondence implies, the scientific study of religion is itself an important topic, and the Templeton Foundation gives grants for such work, for example in the field of cognitive psychology and the evolution of religious belief.

There are many reasons why the funding of academic research in this arena should be supported. Far from being in “fundamental conflict”, history shows that there has been a constant traffic of ideas between science and religion, which provide complementary accounts of the same reality. In Stephen Hawking's colourful words, religion addresses the question “Why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing?”. Boundary disputes arise when science claims too much (as in the philosophy of 'scientism') or when religion encroaches on science (as in so-called intelligent design, or creationism).

One pragmatic reason for supporting good academic science–religion research is that most of the world's taxpayers, who fund science, have religious beliefs. Pitting science against religion in that context is not a smart move for the future of science.

Next year is the bicentenary of Darwin's birth and also marks 150 years since the publication of his On the Origin of Species. It would be great if atheists, agnostics and religious believers alike could celebrate Darwin as the brilliant biologist he was, not as the icon of a particular ideology.

see also Religion and science: separated by an unbridgeable chasm.