I suspect that the title in Nature an editorial choice : Atheism could be science’s contribution to religion, based on the final phrase of Cobb’s and Coyne’s letter (below the fold and link):
In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.
That’s quite different, I mean “religion” and “ideas of religion” don’t equate. Make it sound as atheism is conceptually close to religions. It isn’t.
I changed it for my post, making it more close to Cobb’s and Coyne’s point of view, I think.
Sir
We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation (‘Templeton’s legacy’ Nature 454, 253–254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world — explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.
Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe. (The same is true of religion’s poor cousin, ’spirituality’, which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses ‘intelligent design’.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.
The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world’s belief systems.
Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or ’spirituality’) any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about “advances in theological thinking”. In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.
I wonder why they didn’t used “God-created Universe” instead of “God-built Universe“, creationism doesn’t sound well, but we are used to it, what would be the replacement? Builtationists?
I think both lost the point. JTF is not interested about big question, but rather about Big Questions, in the very same way believers do not believe to god, but to God. Capitalization is capital here. That may explain why JTF (or any other religion driven enterprise) will never try to understand “why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things“. This is not a Big Question, this is a big question.
Or maybe it is that the two fellows are asking to consider “the rise and fall of the world’s belief systems“! The rise would be probably OK to consider, much better if a few angels and demons are joining the party, but the fall! Only an atheist or everybody else without the same beliefs could think of that. What an ill conceived perspective 
