The text can be converted into reported speech as follows:

The speakers asserted that religion isn't outdated simply because some people
claim that we can only know what the natural sciences tell us. They explained that
philosophy and theology are the next steps in the search for truth about nature,
human nature, and God.

The annual meeting in January of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos,
Switzerland, brought together an elite group of world leaders to consider the “state
of the world” and to offer various strategies for improvement.

This year, participants were able to listen to Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and
various prime ministers, heads of state, economic, and political theorists who
shared their visions of contemporary society, politics, and economics, along with
developments in the neurosciences and technology.

The insights offered at this Alpine mountain gathering were often taken as oracular
pronouncements, reminiscent of the knowledge and advice dispensed by the
Greek gods from Mt. Olympus. They were eagerly awaited and then disseminated
through television, print media, and the internet.

Among the roughly 3,000 participants, a growing number were referred to by the
WEF as “faith leaders.” Some of them were part of its newly established “Global
Agenda Council on the Role of Faith,” which is one of about eighty Global Agenda
Councils formed to address “the most pressing issues and opportunities of our time
and to provide new thinking and solutions.”

Although it was considered important to have religious leaders present at any

meeting about the “state of the world,” this year there was an open forum titled “Is
Religion Outdated in the 21st Century?” Other forums that addressed religious
issues included “The Moral Economy: From the Social Contract to Social
Covenant,” “Religion and Politics,” and “Beliefs That Bond.” However, the panel on
religion’s relevance drew the most attention, particularly from the press.

Indeed, the singular performance of one of the panelists, Lawrence Krauss, the
American theoretical physicist and self-identified anti-theist, made the event quite
lively. Krauss was noted for being the author of A Universe From Nothing: Why
There is Something Rather Than Nothing and was well-known for his strident
attacks on religious belief.
The panel included a Buddhist monk from Thailand, a Catholic monk
from Great Britain, Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, who is the head of the
Conference of European Rabbis, Sister Carol Keehan, who heads the US
Catholic Health Association, and a young Israeli woman, whose primary
interest was in “spiritual entrepreneurship.” The moderator was
identified as the editor of a major newspaper in Jakarta, Indonesia.

A premise of the session was that, despite their ancient lineage, religions
are often the slowest to respond to modern issues such as drugs,
homosexuality, and family relationships. The forum's announcement
posed several subsidiary questions, including whether society is
becoming multi-faith or if many are losing their faith entirely, how
religious institutions are contributing to instilling tolerance and values in
society, how trends in societal evolution can be reconciled with religious
beliefs, and how to promote both freedom of speech and religious
freedom simultaneously. The title and framing of the forum made the
organizers' vision of the discussion clear.

All but one of the panelists were willing to discuss the positive role of
religion in personal and social life, despite historical and contemporary
examples of its misuse. However, Krauss was unapologetic in his
opening remarks, stating that religion is outdated. He acknowledged
that more than four billion people in the world identify as religious but
argued that very few, particularly in the "first world" (Europe, North
America, Japan, and Australia), accept the doctrines of their religions as
true.

As an illustration, he cited the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation,

which asserts that the bread and wine in the Mass become the body and
blood of Christ. Krauss contended that no one, not even Catholics,
genuinely believes such nonsense. While he did not deny the
significance of religion, he compared its importance to that of nuclear
weapons. He stated that both exist and should be taken seriously, but
the world would be better off if neither did.

Krauss was unwilling to concede that sacred religious texts possess

timeless wisdom. He described these texts, particularly the Bible, as
products of ignorant Bronze or Iron Age peasants who lacked knowledge
of basic astronomical facts. Due to their lack of scientific understanding
and inadequate knowledge of the real world, he argued that these
authors should not be regarded as trustworthy guides to the good life.
He responded vigorously to his co-panelists' somewhat weak challenges.
While the others tended to emphasize the utility of religious belief,
Krauss aimed to expose its lack of truth, labeling it fundamentally false.
He characterized religion's role in the "state of the world" as a cancer
that must be excised but did not propose how this might be achieved,
given its deep-rooted foundations in human nature and history.

Robert Bellah's recent masterful study, Religion in Human Evolution:

From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age, provides ample description of
these foundations. Bellah finds considerable value in the religious
expressions of those whom Krauss might label as "ignorant peasants."
He celebrates the "axial age," a period in the first millennium BC in
ancient Israel, Greece, India, and China, during which cultural
advancements led to significant developments in religion, ethics, and
the understanding of the natural world.

As the only non-believer on the panel, Krauss dominated the

discussion by challenging any positive analysis of religion put forth by
the others. He defended reason and science against what he
perceived as the encroachments of religious belief. He stated that he
does not believe in God, just as he does not believe a tea kettle is
orbiting Jupiter, due to the lack of evidence for either. However, he did
mention that he would be willing to consider evidence for God's
existence if someone were to present it.

This concession provided an opportunity to question what Krauss

considers to be evidence.

The text argues that if one believes that the natural sciences provide the sole
access to reality, then only evidence supporting the natural sciences—those
aspects subjected to sensory experience, laboratory experiments, and
mathematical measurement—can shape judgments about reality. It suggests that it
is challenging to understand how art, music, and literature could contribute to our
comprehension of the world, as they would merely serve as evidence of human
expression rather than a means to discern truth. Furthermore, it contends that
philosophy and theology must be dismissed as forms of idol worship.
It appears that thinkers like Krauss do not find it troubling that determining which
types of evidence are acceptable for drawing conclusions about the world involves
a philosophical judgment. They argue that limiting the scope of reason to the
empirical realm diminishes the human pursuit of knowledge, as it disregards the
possibility of acquiring knowledge beyond the natural sciences.

Additionally, this perspective neglects the role of faith in uncovering truths about
nature, human nature, and God. According to Krauss, the assertion that faith,
particularly Christian faith, contains intelligible content should be rejected since any
evidence supporting this claim does not qualify as genuine evidence—except,
perhaps, as evidence of folly.

The discussion regarding religion at Davos illustrated how easily one can confuse
sociological, philosophical, and theological analyses, or even conflate them,
leading to a failure to recognize their distinctions. The term "outdated" was
interpreted by most panelists as synonymous with "irrelevant." Krauss considered
"relevant" to mean "important" and acknowledged that while religion is "important,"
it is also false. Nonetheless, he was commended for not shying away from asking
challenging questions about the nature of existence.

The World Economic Forum seems to prioritize social scientific analyses, along
with some ethical studies on issues such as global warming and rapid
technological advancements. Addressing strategies for navigating economic,
political, and social crises necessitates a thorough understanding of these crises
and their underlying causes. However, it also requires sound philosophy and,
arguably, good theology.

In both scenarios, there are fundamental principles concerning nature and human
nature that must be uncovered, serving as the foundation for sound arguments.
Despite the diverse offerings at Davos, the prevailing approach appeared to be
almost entirely utilitarian. While discussing the utility of religion is certainly a
worthwhile endeavor, Krauss's contributions highlighted the existence of more
fundamental topics deserving of attention. It may be particularly beneficial for WEF
organizers to integrate additional sessions focusing on the philosophical and
theological underpinnings of any dialogue concerning the "state of the world."
Ultimately, a critical aspect of the "state of the world" is its creation; the
acknowledgment that the world is created should influence our broader judgments
about it and inform our actions.

When prompted to acknowledge that science addresses "how" questions while

religion tackles "why" questions—and that both sets of inquiries are necessary—
Krauss outright rejected this distinction. He maintained that all so-called "why"
questions merely translate into "how" questions. According to Krauss, asking why
the universe exists, an ultimate "why" question, is simply equivalent to inquiring
how the universe came into being.

He claimed that experiments being conducted elsewhere in Switzerland,

specifically at the Large Hadron Collider, would reveal far more about the
universe's origins than religion ever could. His views echoed those of pre-Socratic
materialists and their successors, who understood the world solely in terms of its
material components, perhaps accompanied by the laws governing their
interactions.

Sulak Sivaraksa, a Buddhist monk from Thailand attending the panel, urged for
humility in the face of what the world presents, implicitly criticizing the perceived
arrogance in thinking that science holds all the answers we seek. In response,
Krauss asserted that science promotes this very humility. He argued that the
universe revealed by contemporary science fosters genuine humility regarding both
the knowledge we have yet to acquire and our own insignificance in relation to the
vastness of life on Earth and our non-privileged status in an almost infinite
universe.

Krauss described the beauty of the natural order as a constant source of wonder
and awe for him, suggesting that it is more significant than anything religion can
offer. He noted that the wonder and awe he finds in nature are rooted in the way
things are, rather than in the fictions of religious belief. This claim is not new, as
one could think of the great epic poem by Lucretius, De rerum natura (On the
Nature of Things), which celebrates the materialism of Epicurus.

Lucretius stated that all things, including the gods, are made of atoms. He pointed
out that the debate in the ancient world is not so different from the one Krauss
urges us to engage in. Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher and Roman
emperor, wrote in his Meditations that when confronted by the vicissitudes of daily
life—and there were many for an emperor—one should reconsider the alternatives:
either providence or atoms. He entertained the alternatives of order and purpose
versus chaos and chance in the universe. While we might not agree with the Stoic
philosophy that Marcus Aurelius employed to defend providence, he demonstrated
why philosophy is crucial in answering such questions.

Krauss is right in describing the wonder and awe that the universe evokes in us.
However, unfortunately, he seems to end his narrative there. Aristotle reminded us
that philosophy begins with wonder and leads to greater knowledge, indicating that
it starts where Krauss appears to conclude.
Reason opens up possibilities for consideration that extend well beyond those
grasped by our sense experience and the natural sciences, while theology further
broadens the domain of knowledge. The rarefied air at Davos may produce a kind
of intellectual vertigo that overlooks these truths.
1

Summary
The speakers asserted that religion isn`t outdated simply because some people
claim that we can only know what the natural sciences tell us.
The annual meeting in January of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos,
Switzerland, brought together an elite group of world leaders to consider the “state
of the world” and to offer various strategies for improvement.
” Although it was considered important to have religious leaders present at any
meeting about the “state of the world,” this year there was an open forum titled “Is
Religion Outdated in the 21st Century?” Other forums that addressed religious
issues included “The Moral Economy: From the Social Contract to Social
Covenant,” “Religion and Politics,” and “Beliefs That Bond.
Krauss was noted for being the author of A Universe From Nothing: Why There is
Something Rather Than Nothing and was well-known for his strident attacks on
religious belief.
All but one of the panelists were willing to discuss the positive role of religion in
personal and social life, despite historical and contemporary examples of its
misuse.
However, Krauss was unapologetic in his opening remarks, stating that religion is
outdated.
He acknowledged that more than four billion people in the world identify as
religious but argued that very few, particularly in the ‘‘first world‘‘ (Europe, North
America, Japan, and Australia), accept the doctrines of their religions as true.
Krauss was unwilling to concede that sacred religious texts possess timeless
wisdom.
He described these texts, particularly the Bible, as products of ignorant Bronze or
Iron Age peasants who lacked knowledge of basic astronomical facts.
Due to their lack of scientific understanding and inadequate knowledge of the real
world, he argued that these authors should not be regarded as trustworthy guides
to the good life.
While the others tended to emphasize the utility of religious belief, Krauss aimed to
expose its lack of truth, labeling it fundamentally false.
He characterized religion's role in the ‘‘state of the world‘‘ as a cancer that must be
excised but did not propose how this might be achieved, given its deep-rooted
foundations in human nature and history.
Robert Bellah's recent masterful study, Religion in Human Evolution: From the
Paleolithic to the Axial Age, provides ample description of these foundations.
Bellah finds considerable value in the religious expressions of those whom Krauss
might label as ‘‘ignorant peasants.
‘‘ He celebrates the ‘‘axial age,‘‘ a period in the first millennium BC in ancient Israel,
Greece, India, and China, during which cultural advancements led to significant
developments in religion, ethics, and the understanding of the natural world.
As the only non-believer on the panel, Krauss dominated the discussion by
challenging any positive analysis of religion put forth by the others.
He stated that he does not believe in God, just as he does not believe a tea kettle
is orbiting Jupiter, due to the lack of evidence for either.
However, he did mention that he would be willing to consider evidence for God's
existence if someone were to present it.
This concession provided an opportunity to question what Krauss considers to be
evidence.
The text argues that if one believes that the natural sciences provide the sole
access to reality, then only evidence supporting the natural sciences—those
aspects subjected to sensory experience, laboratory experiments, and
mathematical measurement—can shape judgments about reality.