Huh? Not sure what you're implying.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scholarscholar: a person who studies a subject in great detail, especially at a university
How is that rare, or some sort of stretch to call someone with a PhD, who teaches at a mainstream college and has published research a scholar? Calling someone who has a PhD in an area, conducts research, teaches, and writes books about it a "scholar" is less wanky than an alternative choice such as "intellectual". Being a scholar is what you do, being an "intellectual" implies the person is innately better than everyone else.
Or, I guess you're saying that because someone else decided to give him that award, then that devalues all the work he's ever done?
The guy is a liberal atheist, who's area of study is on the psychology of ethics and morality. That crosses over into studying the psychology of religion, which is probably why he won that prize, but it's very unfair to say that winning the prize means he cannot be taken seriously as a scholar. It looks like
trying really hard to find the one thing you don't like about that guy then implying it defines his entire career.
This short article kind of sums up the deal, cutting out some quotes:
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religionas a secular liberal I agree that contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations ... I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.
If religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people it's definitely a worthwhile goal to study the in-depth reasons for that, which is one of Jonathon Haidt's areas of study, which he won that Templeton award for. If you can unravel
why religion makes people happy then you can use that to make a better atheism, too: being miserable but right about everything is of limited pragmatic value, so it's worthwhile to work out
how religion makes people happy.