This reminds me of one a Christopher Hitchens one-liner, "What good work can a believer do that an atheist cannot?" and Bishop Barron's equally pithy response: "Properly worship God." One of the great feats of the Baltimore Catechism was its memorable explanation of the purpose of man.
Without an anthropology, we're basically saying that "we should make the things we make be good for us not bad for us" -- and my question is *how did we get to a point where this needs to be said *- much less *the only thing we have the ability to say.*
Well really without an anthropology, "we should make things that are good for us" is just a vacuous statement. If you don't have a theology, what could you possibly mean by the injunction to glorify God?
I think we got here by building without regard to anthropology, finding ourselves in a world we built that isn't in harmony with the truth, and then concluding that there is no such truth.
Another way of looking at it would be the promise of liberalism (and liberalism undergirds.... most everything in the world we see now especially technology): that you can build a society in which people who fundamentally disagree with each other can get along. Holding that requires you to believe in no anthropology, or at least that it doesn't matter.
This reminds me of one a Christopher Hitchens one-liner, "What good work can a believer do that an atheist cannot?" and Bishop Barron's equally pithy response: "Properly worship God." One of the great feats of the Baltimore Catechism was its memorable explanation of the purpose of man.
Without an anthropology, we're basically saying that "we should make the things we make be good for us not bad for us" -- and my question is *how did we get to a point where this needs to be said *- much less *the only thing we have the ability to say.*
Well really without an anthropology, "we should make things that are good for us" is just a vacuous statement. If you don't have a theology, what could you possibly mean by the injunction to glorify God?
I think we got here by building without regard to anthropology, finding ourselves in a world we built that isn't in harmony with the truth, and then concluding that there is no such truth.
Another way of looking at it would be the promise of liberalism (and liberalism undergirds.... most everything in the world we see now especially technology): that you can build a society in which people who fundamentally disagree with each other can get along. Holding that requires you to believe in no anthropology, or at least that it doesn't matter.