home
RSS
My Take: The case for including ethics, religion in science class
Science teachers must make their subject relevant to students' lives by tackling religion and ethics, argues Arri Eisen.
December 15th, 2011
10:48 AM ET

My Take: The case for including ethics, religion in science class

Editor's note: Arri Eisen, PhD., is professor of pedagogy at Emory University’s Center for Ethics, Department of Biology, and Graduate Institute of the Liberal Arts.

By Arri Eisen, Special to CNN

A referendum that would have restricted in vitro fertilization in Mississippi, disagreements on the causes of global warming, the question of how to allot health care resources for desperate cases at the beginning or end of life.

Many of today's headlines and hyper-polarized political debates happen at the borders of science and society, especially where science meets ethics and religion.

At the same time, in at what first appears to be in an unrelated domain, President Barack Obama and others call for more and better science education in America to compete in innovation with rising giants India and China. This at a time when American science literacy appears to be decreasing, and even students who like science drop like flies from that pursuit once they hit college and its huge introductory lecture courses.

Is it possible that rethinking the ethical calculus of how we teach science could enhance the pool of future scientists and enrich the quality of conversation around controversial issues?

What’s the connection? Well, from kindergarten on we often teach science as a body of information not relevant to anything going on in the world. This is a cell and these are its parts; memorize them and their functions. This is the human body and these are the different systems of which it is composed.

Such facts are important, but without a meaningful context (cell functions gone awry can cause cancer; all the body systems talk to each other, so depression can affect your cardiovascular system) such information has little real substance and is poorly retained.

This approach violates the first rule of good teaching: Integrate the information into your students’ lives and worldviews, including those based in religion or ethical systems, and translate it into something they can connect with and use. Science has an especially rich and often fraught role to play in society; if we don’t at least acknowledge this we imply it is unimportant.

Not surprisingly, studies show that when teachers do integrate science knowledge into students' lives, the students learn the science better.

But rather than incentivize teaching innovation that would allow science educators to discuss religion and ethics –- for example, creationism in light of evolution and vice versa, or the scientific and ethical implications of stem cells and in vitro fertilization – many teachers are afraid to even mention these issues, despite their importance, for fear of losing their jobs.

The classic example is the public school biology teacher without tenure who, understandably, finds it much easier to skip any discussion of evolution because of its potential controversial nature. This would be OK except for the small detail that evolution is the fundamental, underlying principle of all biology.

I teach biology at a private university. When I ask students in my cell biology course, “How many of you believe in evolution?” almost all of them raise their hands. When I ask them, “How many of you think something in addition to evolution accounts for humans being on earth as we now exist?” almost all of them raise their hands.

Two inconsistent thoughts coexist without an attempt to reconcile or integrate them. It is this kind of dissonance of fundamental beliefs and science that good education should address and help explore, and certainly not ignore. Only when science educators can proactively engage all societal elephants in the room and illustrate science's relatively limited power will two vitally important things happen:

First, as they are forming their beliefs — whatever they may be — students will be aware of the nature of science and its relation to complex ethical and religious issues. That means they’ll better appreciate different types of evidence and will be more likely to argue from and about that evidence rather than from emotion. Second, more students initially interested in science will continue to pursue it through college because they will better see its value and importance to the big issues and will learn science better.

How to accomplish this? How to break the vicious circle? One way is to frame the benefits differently — economic competition and innovation, national security, improved learning, or more substantial political debate — for different constituencies. For example, perhaps a politically conservative, religious audience might appreciate the importance of good science education through the lens of its importance to the economy or national security.

Another break in the circle is to help teachers learn how to teach science in context more effectively. I often find that simply acknowledging the ethical or religious issue relaxes students; a few others  have explored approaches for better integration of these issues.

In my cell biology course, we investigate the biology and chemistry of a cell surface receptor that helps induce good feelings in us when it binds to a chemical compound found in incense; this may help explain why so many different cultures and religions have independently evolved the use of incense in their ceremonies and rituals.

We discuss the detailed cellular and molecular biology of the research in the context of ritual; the students report this opens a door that’s usually closed between those two sides of their minds. Religious students, who say they often feel their beliefs are ignored or belittled on campus, find this discussion especially welcome and thought-provoking.

High school educators in Wisconsin showed that students who read original texts from Darwin and intelligent-design scholars, and discussing those texts, critically learned evolution better (without rejection of other worldviews) than those taught it in the traditional didactic manner. Teaching potentially controversial science can work if done in an interactive, engaging fashion and in a rich historical and societal context.

Clearly, there are a multitude of reasons for America’s polarized politics and decreasing science literacy and innovation that go beyond just teaching science better. But sometimes a little creative wrestling with and engagement in systems and programs that already exist can make a difference.

Once I offered the opportunity for anyone in the cell biology course to simultaneously take a seminar course focusing on the societal and ethical implications of the biology discussed in the cell course. Half the biology class wanted to enroll in the seminar.

A dozen students — all future scientists and health care workers — wound up in the course, representing seven different religions and traditions, from Christianity to Jainism to Judaism.

Students were amazed so many of their peers took religion seriously, and those students tell me that the conversations and debates we had in the course, together with the seminar, resonate to this day. Many say science is now woven together with ethics and religion in their minds; they can’t think about biology without thinking about its meaning in the greater context.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arri Eisen.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Culture & Science • Education • Opinion

soundoff (2,297 Responses)
  1. Arjun

    None of the religions neither 100% right nor 100% wrong. There are some thing truth and something false. Religions have their expertise over spiritual matters. Science has it over matter. They should not interfere in each other work. We dont ask a engineer about medical science.

    An engineer might know some thing about medicine and could tell few things, if he was asked. But he is not authority on medicine and should not have any prejudice about admitting he is wrong.

    Similarly religion should not be adamant that they know everything and admit if some thing is proven wrong. Heart of any religion is to be good and worship God. They should just be content with that.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      I can guess that your either Chinese or Indian, look into the Catholic faith for me, will yah? Save your soul.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Relictus

      Religions are 100% wrong because they are all based on the idea of the supernatural. No matter what they get right, it is all based on the idea that there is something beyond the natural world – a lie.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • Argueing with George is like shooting fish in a barrel

      What about biomedical engineers ?

      December 15, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Wait, your telling me organisms coming from the sea and orming into humans is just as real? In catholosism, we acklowledge the existense of the supernatural, but in science, the supernatural simply can't exist, leaving simply no answer for some of scientists theories!

      December 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  2. shawbrooke

    Seminars in university are a great idea. So is providing context and real world discussion of diseases and impacts. But going into issues in a high school is not a good idea. I had teachers who tried an issues focus and their classes were disasters. Most of the kids weren't mature enough to handle the topics, the teacher promoted his ideas with what to the kids was evangelistic fervor and what to him was commendable restraint, and the kids felt pressured. There was another downside for the school system, because what our teacher thought was correct was proven mostly wrong by the time we'd been in university.a few years, and now as a parent I'd say – please don't do this to families and kids.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      So religion is a story for families and kids? Listen bud, i'm sick of stinking atheists making fun of my religion, but whenever I coe back at them, they always say either: We haven't figured it our yet, or all catolics are on crack. YOU @!#$ING KNOW WHAT? DARWIN WAS ON CRACK, WHILE NO DRUGS EXISTED IN THE 00 A.D. OH YES, I SAID A.D., NOT THAT !@#$ING C.E. COMMON ERA PIG @!#$

      December 15, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
  3. Asad Khan

    The Bible states that life on earth started with the 'talking snake fooled Adam & Eve into eating the apple in the Garden of Eden' compared to scientific evidence of Evolution. It would be stupid to relate the two.....The writer of this article is just as stupid as the story in the Bible!

    December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Arjun

      Evolution does require at least the same amount of magic compared with a talking snake. I am not saying talking snake to be true. But we can not depend on evolution either.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Listen dude, if the big bang really hapended to to gravity, or whatever longjevity scientists have put on it, why hasn't it collapsed yet? Theres a lot of stuff scientists will "figure out later" seems like a bunch of sheep dung to me.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
  4. JJWW

    Worst science teacher ever.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
  5. mo

    I applaud the article. The author here is proposing that everyone gets at least a little bit of knowledge on a subject most of us really know anything about. Religion. Face it, the majority here completely judge and plainly discard all religions as being completely false without having the slightest clue of what their main beliefs are. Most will die repeating the same ignorance passed down from generations of listeners of a "single sided story".

    December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Hmmm.... Single sided story? Most of the laws of the catholic church are common sene: No killing, no EXTREME jealusy, no making others feel bad... What part of common sense states that you can have 15 wives...

      December 15, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • Mad Panda

      Please support with evidence why we should take those main beliefs seriously...

      Good luck. If you do this then the church can happily throw away the term "faith" because it wont be needed anymore. That would be a great day for the church indeed as this is why most nonbelievers cant believe. It strikes them as being dishonest with themselves.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Mad Panda

      It is my belief that there was once a time when killing other humans was not at all wrong. Go back far enouph where it was kill or be killed and selective pressure was exponentially greater on us that it is now, and it can be justified. In other words ethics change as societies chance.-contrary to what religion claims.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Corret amundo mr. mad panda, however, that was before Jesus brough the glory of his teachings!

      December 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Relictus

      Mo, you have it far wrong. Atheists are generally knowledgeable about many religious faiths. Only the religious can afford ignorance. Even pagans tend to have a better knowledge of the Bible than religious folks. It is very sad.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • mo

      @relictus
      The generalization of religious/atheist will not get us anywhere. You may/may not be right.
      But the point of the author is to enable people to view/learn both sides of the story – that I have to agree with. Otherwise you purchase the new model Ford without learning anything Chevy recently released.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  6. john

    Also to all you anti science people out there, do you use, computers, cars, planes, microwaves, tv's, medicine, electricity?? etc etc. where do you think these things came from? out of a fairy tale book?? No from hard working scientists from SCIENCE, you use these things yet you oppose science you HIPPOCRATES! Unless you live like the Amish SHUT UP. I have respect for the Amish at least they put their lifestyle where their beliefs are!

    December 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • kali1137

      I live in an area with a high concentration of Amish and let me tell you that they most certainly do not live the way thier religion tells them. They use cars, cellphones, eat at Burger king and have electricity. As with any "religion" I feel they are hypocrites. If they truly lived they way people think they do, I would respect them too – but they don't.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      I believe in sience like cars 'n stuff. The bible doesn't contridict that! (How bout you read it once!) It does, however, contridict the fact that we came from organisims from the sea (under the sea!)

      December 15, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • Relictus

      "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court" – Mark Twain's story about technology being at odds with religion still applies today.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
  7. k

    Sure, religion is a science...SOCIAL SCIENCE (sociology, anthropology, law, history, etc.). It is not a natural science (physics, checmistry, biology,etc.). It is important that we know and understand both. But they do not belong in the same class.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Relictus

      Religion does not count as social science because religion will never follow the fundamental basis on which all science is founded: Observation, hypothesis and experimentation. No religion will produce "new" advances in how people relate to one another. Religions are closed systems.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
  8. Bucky fan

    Buckminster Fuller posited "God is a verb, not a noun." Thus, to bridge the science-religion gap let's just accept that evolution is God and vice versa. Problem solved.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Well, Verbs and Nouns are ust labels we put on things, just because you CALL God a verb doesn't make him a Verb. Look at all the mericles that have existed w/ God! It seems to me athiests are just really LAZY!

      December 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @Sandy: It seems to me that christards are lazy!! As long as you can hold an unknown god accountable for everything, you don't need to think for yourself!! Which god are you speaking of by the way and how are you so sure it is a male and not female? Before spewing your biblical crap, do some research...god has never been proven. Atheists say they don't believe because we see no evidence for it and before you tell us to read the buy-bull, most of us have and that is why we are Atheists. When we don't have an answer or reason for something we simply state we don't know....when you don't have an answer for something you use god to fill the gap and are satisfied with that...so who exactly is lazy??? I'm guessing you have never read the buybull in full or you too would be one of us.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
  9. Total Non Sense

    Option: BAN RELIGION universe wide..... religion HAD NEVER EVER CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING POSITIVE FOR THE HUMAN RACE

    December 15, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • N

      I see where you get your nickname, Total Non Sense, because you are Total Non Sense. Have you ever heard of the Salvation Army???

      December 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      And science wil lone day cause robots to kill us, while God has saved countless souls into heaven and eternal wonderulness.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Ramesh

      Do you consider Greco-Roman polytheism to be a religion?
      Because it was Greek Pagans like Aristotle, Plato, etc. who discovered logic, the cornerstone of modern civilization.
      So much for your claim that religion has contributed nothing.

      December 15, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  10. armiger_mama

    I find Dr. Eisen's argument weak, especially when he opened the article with "... more and better science education in America to compete in innovation with rising giants India and China". I grew up in Taiwan, a free country with many forms of religion practiced by most of the population. The politics may be polarized in Taiwan, similar to the US, but everyone is very tolerated to all religions. And there's one thing I can testified – religion is never mixed in with any of my science courses. It may be mentioned as a historical background for introducing some important theories, but it is not science.

    And there is always more science major in Taiwan than other major I know of. I don't think missing religion and ethnic with science will help US youth to gain more interests in science. In the US, kids interested in science are portrayed as "geeks" and subject to bully. In Taiwan, there is no such correlation. Until the US society give scientists and their pupil respects that are due to them (or at leave them alone), I doubt you will see growth in kids interested in science. Which 13 years old wants to be labeled as the geek or dork?!

    December 15, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      HAHAAHAHA, you are right my friend!

      December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Relictus

      100% agreed. Countries like Taiwan and China teach kids fundamentals without mixing fairy tales into it.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  11. Ben

    Creationism is not science. It would be wrong to teach it in a science class. Science classes teach subjects governed by 'the scientific method'. Religious beliefs do not operate via 'the scientific method'. Hence, they are not science and should never be on an equal footing in the classroom.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • Relictus

      YES! 100% agree with Ben.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  12. john

    This it outrageous religion is NOT an alternative to science, religion is a social belief system, science is mans method for understanding the world. A person is either educated and follows the current scientific view of things or they are ignorant and want to believe in mythical fairy tales. Leave religion in private religious schools for those that want it it has NO place in a public school whatsoever! This is the 21st century lets act like it is!

    December 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • JJWW

      Word.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  13. Sandy Cluz

    The only thing I could notice was he had a lot of plastic surgeries... Besides, no one can compete w/ China or India, they whip their kids if its not all straight 100%, you can deny it, but its the truth.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
  14. Andrew

    We absolutely do not need religiion taught in science class. It is totally counterproductive. Religious people have been jamming it down our throats for thousands of years. Science is about the scientific method: observe, hypothesis, experiment, test, new hypothesis, and on and on. Religion does not allow for this. It has no place in science whatsoever. Anyone who thinks so is nuts. We don't need to go back to Middle Ages.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Relictus

      Agreed, and there should be formal classes on Ethics as well. Ethics and Science are a wonderful mix. Religion, not so much. You cannot even say that Religion is the foundation of Ethics, because the Greeks separated the two and so much of western thought is based on that groundwork.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • james claydon

      religion is garbage. keep it out of the schools. until the religious allow equal time teaching of evolution in church.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
  15. Carl Drews

    It would be great if science teachers were allowed to demonstrate in public schools that evolution does not contradict the Bible. Then the students with a strong Christian upbringing would not resist learning about how amazing evolution really is, and how powerful is this biological process for bringing forth life on our planet.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      Evolution DOESN'T contridict the Bible, you are correct. However (i'm no idiot) but evolution makes no sense to me! Why haven't all apes evolved to humans? Why hasn't the universe or multi-vere or whatever collapsed back in on its-elf?! It seems that whenever something contridicts scientists ways, they try to make a scientific law that makes their theories look good. Does no one else see this pattern?

      December 15, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Sandy Cluz

      I;m catholic, read my other response... I was also always bullied by kids at school for what I believed in, so scientists aren't on my give a good Christmas Present list.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • NoEfingWay

      Sandy, many Americans came from Europe but there are still Europeans. For the same reason there are still apes. Read a book on Evolution. Anything by Richard Dawkins.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Relictus

      The sooner that we get away from the bronze-age fairy tales, the better! =)

      December 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • skarphace

      I am sorry, but evolution of humans does indeed contradict the Christian version of creationism. The bible says that we were created in our current form, as humans. Evolution says that our distant ancestors, many millions of years ago, weren't human at all. This is a contradiction. Either we were created in our current form or we were not.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • ashrakay

      @Sandy Cluz, I can see why none of this makes sense to you. You clearly haven't taken the time to study it. Rather than me take the time to educate you on evolution and m-theory, I will try to provide some materials for you to research yourself. First of all, we did not evolve from apes. We share a similar relative. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that you evolved from your distant cousin, which makes no sense. Here's a website that outlines the fossil record and family tree branching based on the evidence we've gathered so far: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

      December 15, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • ashrakay

      @Sandy Cluz, and.... christians stole christmas from pagans.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • wayne317

      Sandy Cluz

      "Evolution DOESN'T contridict the Bible"

      Yes it does, the order of which animals were "created' in the bible contrdict the evidence whe have of the order in which animals evolved.

      "However (i'm no idiot) but evolution makes no sense to me! Why haven't all apes evolved to humans? "

      Why haven't all birds evovled in to piegons? That's pretty much the question you are asking.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Carl Drews

      How about the earth? Was that created in its present form? I distinctly remember the volcanic island of Surtsey (near Iceland) popping out of the ocean a few decades ago. Or was that micro-geology and not macro-geology?

      December 15, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • Brewer79

      Sandy, your confusion of the process is fairly common and easy to correct. If you want to learn watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
      its clear and concise on explaining the evolutionary process.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Mike

      About what Sandy Cluz said. I have a degree in Biology and the reason that apes have not all evolved to humans is because they were never meant to. Some people have the illusion that evolution means that everything, given enough time, will evolve to the perfect animal..us. This is not true. Us and apes had a common ancestor like you and your cousin had a common grandparent but as time went on the line separated and became slowly more different. Thus, each animal is changing to suit its environment not changing to become a higher being.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Carl Drews

      and there is NO Biblical prohibition against one "biblical kind" turning into another biblical kind, either:
      http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html

      December 15, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  16. agentgirl

    How about NO. If you believe that the earth was created by a fictional being then you don't have the smarts to understand science.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Relictus

      Some smart people have total cognitive dissonance when it comes to Religion. Emotions and social interactions influence a lot of science. If this were just a matter of ignorance, everyone would be atheists by now. No, it is a cultural and emotional issue.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  17. Doug

    This author made his own point moot by including the anecdote about students raising their hands when asked if something other than evolution created humans. Obviously these students were already finding a balance between religion and science on their own. They don't need refreshers in science class – especially science religion is not even close to science. It's philosophy, and should stay within philosophy class, or Sunday School, or whatever religious activities students in which students already partake.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
  18. Primewonk

    If we're going to interject creationism into discussions of science to high school students, how do we decide which version of creationism to teach? We've identified a thousand of them so far. I really like this one:

    At the beginning of time, Amma (a supreme god who lived in the celestial regions and was the origin of all creation) created the Earth and immediately joined with it. But the Earth's cli oris opposed the male pe nis. Amma destroyed it, circu mcising his wife, and they had a child, Ogo, and the twins, the Nommo. Ogo had no partner and was barren, so he introduced disorder into the world by committing inc est with his mother, Earth. The first mens trual blood came from this union, as well as Yeban and Andumbulu, the spirits of the underworld.
    Amma created the stars by throwing pellets of earth into space. He created the sun and moon by modelling two white earthenware bowls, one encircled with red copper, the other with white copper. Black people were born under the sun and white people under the moon. (the myth of the Dogon)

    Can you imagine the fundamentalist kids and parents heads exploding with this one?

    December 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • NoEfingWay

      I like the one that says we're on a turtle that stands on an elephant.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Ray

      Can you explain the evolution of vision?

      December 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Jesus

      That was beautiful.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
  19. ashrakay

    I love how the author equates ethics with religion. As if we should take our ethical views from religion which teaches killing of women and children, ra-pe, incest, slavery, etc.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • N

      And what religion are you talking about? Because it sure isn't Christianity.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • ashrakay

      @N, apparently, you haven't read the bible. Even Jesus was a home wrecker as he demanded people leave their families and follow him.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Relictus

      @ashrakay: Correct =-)

      December 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • McAfee

      You're missing the author's point; its not about ethics or religion, its about integrating science curricula and the "real" world.

      December 15, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
  20. cestlavie3

    Glad to see the faithful out in full force, bowing at the alter of the scientific method.

    December 15, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • wayne317

      As opposed to bowing at the alter of "I can't explain it, so it was done by magic"

      December 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • haha you tried to sound smart but you spelled "altar" wrong haha

      idiot

      December 15, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Relictus

      I much prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants, than kneel in humility to the specter of ignorance. Religion can only hold mankind back. Science can only nudge him forward into the light. Having already eaten a bite of the fruit of knowledge, should we not finish the whole fruit? The penalty is not less either way. May as well enjoy it.

      December 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.