Anti-religious bigotry of scientists

One of my colleagues at the Templeton Cambridge fellowship, Edwin Cartlidge, decided to do his Templeton project on philosophical materialism and its relationship to science. He approached A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett, two prominent materialists, and asked for an interview for the project. They both refused, saying that they want nothing to do with anything related to the Templeton Foundation. Richard Dawkins reprints Cartlidge's request, and adds a misleading pejorative remark: that Cartlidge and other journalists (including me) are being "paid" to sit there and attend the conference. All of us won fellowships, which included cash stipends. What Dawkins doesn't tell you is that one of the conditions of the fellowship is the journalist is not supposed to be at his regular job during the two months of his fellowship. I don't know what my colleagues are doing, but in my case, I'm not getting a paycheck from my employer during these two months. I'm living off the Templeton stipend, which allows me to devote my full time to reading and research in my topic area. Same with Ed Cartlidge.

Not that it matters, or should matter, but I spent two weeks with Ed in Cambridge, and it was not my impression that he is a theist of any kind. I could be wrong about that, though. At no point in the application process did Templeton ask any of us what our religious views were. As far as I can tell, Templeton chose Ed because of his experience as a journalist, and because they thought his project proposal was interesting.

I wish to associate myself with the response of Templeton's Gary Rosen, posted to the Dawkins blog:

A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett have refused to talk to a serious journalist (Edwin Cartlidge of Physics World) about a serious subject (philosophical materialism) because the journalism fellowship under which he is pursuing this subject is sponsored by the Templeton Foundation. They will have nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation, they say, because our aim is somehow to "muddy the waters" about the relationship between science and religion.

That's not how we see it at all. First-rate, peer-reviewed science is essential to our work at the Foundation and to the progressive vision of the late Sir John Templeton, who was deeply committed to scientific discovery. Many of our largest grants go to pure scientific research (like our support for the Foundational Questions Institute in Physics and Cosmology, the Godel Centenary Research Prize Fellowships, and the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard).

But, yes, we do like to include philosophers and theologians in many of our projects. Excellent science is crucial to what we do, but it is not all that we do. We are a "Big Questions" foundation, not a science foundation, and we believe that the world's philosophical and religious traditions have much to contribute to understanding human experience and our place in the universe. For Grayling and Dennett to compare this rich, expansive discussion to a dialogue with astrologers is silly. They know better.

What on earth is wrong with that?

If you go back and read the Dennett and Grayling responses, you'll see that they are unwilling to talk to Ed because they're afraid that somebody, somewhere might, through the work of Templeton, come to believe that religion might have something to contribute to the development of science, or how science is used in our culture. What a ridiculous prejudice. I'm sorry Ed, a reputable science journalist, has to deal with these arrogant knotheads.