In reporting that Martin Rees had won this year's Templeton prize (From big bang to big bucks, 7 April), Ian Sample tells us more about the critics of the John Templeton Foundation than the foundation itself or its current winner. The foundation blurs the boundary between science and religion, the implication being that this is dangerous or madness. Eminent scientists compare religion to homeopathy and any holder of the prize must suffer from intellectual doublethink. The most crucial point in the entire article was buried deep and was made only once: scientists, even the most eminent, read little philosophy or theology and understand even less.
If I want to know what it is to be a human being, I would ask a novelist, not a biologist. We are more than the tools of science can measure: science tells us that water is H2O but does not tell us it is wet. Science only looks outwards, not inwards. At its best, religion is rational, experiential and philosophically and theologically self-critical. It relies heavily on metaphor and paradox and is no less rigorous than science. The key problem for many scientists is that they bring an atheistic philosophy to their science and make claims which their experiments and theories cannot substantiate: interpretation is brought by the thinker, not by the physical universe itself.
Scott McKenna
Edinburgh
• Surely Sir Martin Rees has already forfeited his scientific credentials by accepting a knighthood and royal assignment as astronomer royal? No rationally organised society should allow the continued existence of the monarchy, and no one asserting a scientific worldview should legitimate it by accepting its rewards.
Dr Gordon Downie
Cardiff