Various defenders of academic philosophy are offended (see, eg Jean Kazez and Daniel Fincke)by the contempt expressed by some for the idea of “Divine Foreknowledge” as a topic of serious philosophical investigation (especially when funded by the “notorious” Templeton Foundation). But while I think the question of whether and how some entity having potentially complete foreknowledge of one’s behaviour may or may not be reconciled with some concept of “free will” is actually not without interest(and so agree with much of what Fincke says in his more extended rebuttal), I still sympathise with those who call the proposed study into question.
Use of the word “god” and reference to foreknowledge as “divine” are red flags for hard core “atheists”, and legitimately so as they imply something beyond what is apparently being addressed in the study and thereby appear to be sneakily endorsing an unstated (and unnecessary) assumption. The unqualified use of that loaded term for a hypothetical fully informed entity is unfortunate, and combined with the source of the funding it does, in my opinion, at least bring the study into question if not into outright disrepute.