A lot of folks tend to think of science and religion as dichotomous, i.e. science is on one side, religion is on the other, and never the twain shall meet. This is simply an old wives tale. Science and religion relate to each other in meaningful ways. For example, as William Lane Craig points out, religion not only provides a conceptual framework in which science can flourish, it solves the metaphysical problems that science inevitably runs up against.

This Wisecrack video helps to unpack the metaphysical issue as it relates to Nietzsche’s observations on the limitations of science. It is approximately 3 minutes long. Enjoy!


Speaker, Educator, President of A Clear Lens, Inc. and host of A Clear Lens Podcast. B.Sc., M.Ed. Lives in Las Vegas with his wife, two sons, and dogs.


  1. Some odd assumptions here. Religion can’t provide a framework for science. Science, with its rigorous and objective testing standards, should be the framework for religion and its validity. There aren’t any metaphysical problems to solve. If there aren’t any elements to a claim that can be tested, like a God exists, it’s not a problem, it’s irrelevant. Religions that claim supernatural events such as resurrection or water to wine can’t co-exist with science because their core beliefs can’t be tested and are known to not be possible.

    • Thanks for the comment AST. It seems pretty clear that you didn’t watch the video. I encourage you to watch it as well as follow the link I provided in my initial comments for further clarification.

      • I don’t need to watch the video to disagree with your entire premise. Do you dispute that the metaphysical “problems” you speak of can’t be tested and are therefore irrelevant from a scientific perspective ?

  2. I watched the video. I love the suggestion that science will eventually destroy the world! Too funny. The significant difference with the “evangelizing” of science vs religion is that there is evidence to support the scientific position. Religion just cries “it’s god’s word” and expects one to accept it as fact without any further explanation or reasoning.

      • I’m not exaggerating it to the point of being a straw man. It is what it is. I like how you don’t challenge back with an actual answer, just redirect and accuse me of using a logical fallacy. Nice try. You’re overt suggestion that I need “help” is also hilariously condescending.

        • What I’m doing AST is pointing you in the direction of the necessary information to answer your claims. If you were genuinely interested in seeking truth, you would have all the information you need. Since I suspect you’re not genuinely interested in seeking truth but having a “hilariously” good time taking stabs at our posts, I choose not to fully engage you.

          You probably want to come back with a witty retort so I’ll let you have the last word.

          • Again, you’re operating under your own assumptions that you take as fact. You seem to believe that, after watching a 3 minute video, I should now be more inclined to believe your claims. The resources you pointed me at don’t satisfy my questions. Also, I’m not claiming anything. I’m simply questioning your claims. If you’d care to actually answer a question instead of redirecting, please do so. Any of my previous comments that end with “?” will do.

Comments are closed.