Bart Campolo thinks his kids are the best in the world. Well, not objectively speaking. Well, sort of. I mean, he really prefers his kids to your kids. But he hopes you feel the same way about your own. Is that right? Is that okay? And is there any problem with that sort of ‘us-them’ mentality?

On this episode, Bart and Humanize Me producer John Wright attempt to answer a question from listener Daniel, who’s concerned that in-group/out-group thinking could have a dark side:

“A common critique I hear about religion is that it fosters an us-them mentality. Humanize Me, the episode with Charles Vogl in particular but in general also, says that ‘us-thems’ are not only fine but good. We should have ‘us’ groups, we just shouldn’t mistreat our ‘thems’.

Where it gets sticky for me is, at what point does a preference for one group of people become mistreatment of another? And to me that begins when we say that not only do we prefer a certain group but it’s right for us to prefer this group. When Bart talks about his instinct to treat his child better than another child, to me it sometimes sounds like he thinks that instinct is right, or justifiable. It’s one thing to not feel guilty about it and acknowledge that it’s perfectly natural, but it’s another to think of it as right.

So to me, when I cultivate loving relationships with people inside my group, goes to ‘It is right for me to favor my people’, it’s only a matter of time for me to mistreat someone without realizing it was mistreatment. The other problem I see when embracing us-thems too unreservedly is that when you feel justified sticking to your ‘us’ group, you don’t get challenged on your beliefs or values or ways of thinking and it becomes an echo chamber.

So, my question for Bart is: Do you see any problems with creating communities with distinct definitions and fostering loyalties to those communities and, if so, at what point does this whole thing become negative or unhealthy? Thanks guys.”

If you’re thinking it’s a damn good question, well, that’s what we thought too.

LISTEN HERE

It’s not a term most people use every day, but street epistemology is a thing. Anthony Magnabosco is one of its more prominent ambassadors, largely because he routinely captures his efforts on video and posts them on the internet.

What is street epistemology? It’s a conversational tool which uses Socratic questioning to help people expose the underlying methods by which they arrived at their beliefs, thereby subjecting those beliefs to scrutiny. Examples of Anthony at work can be found on YouTube, and the website can be found at StreetEpistemology.com.

In this conversation, Bart Campolo talks with Anthony about his approach, what he hopes to gain from these conversations, beliefs and their rationality, how irrational beliefs can sometimes be held for understandable reasons, whether it’s fair to challenge someone’s beliefs if you can’t replace their faith-based communities afterwards, responsibilities to people after the conversation is over, and the difference between ordinary believers and professional apologists.

LISTEN HERE

This week’s question comes from a listener who finds it hard to spend time alone without having a really difficult time over it:

“Hey Bart. Okay, so when my girlfriend goes away on business trips, I experience a ton of anxiety. And it isn’t that I’m jealous of her – I’m I’m totally glad that she’s having these experiences – but I get really anxious and my tendency is to want to immediately fill that space with with someone so that I don’t have to have that negative feeling of being all alone, which I really hate. Is there something wrong with me? Thanks.”

Both Bart and John relate to the question on at least some level, and think it’s a fairly common feeling. But is it fair to say that there’s something wrong with someone who feels this way?

Takeaways: Comfort being alone is harder in the digital age, it needs to be exercised and cultivated, sometimes we may be fleeing the sound of our inner voice, there are things we can do to be better at this.

LISTEN HERE

Curating peoples’ secrets. It’s a decidedly odd vocation, but Frank Warren has been doing it for a long time now through his ever-popular online art project, PostSecret. People anonymously send Frank their most intimate, private, beautiful, scandalous, horrifying, amazing, unspoken thoughts on postcards (yes, through the mail!) and Frank posts a new batch of them every Sunday on the site.

LISTEN HERE

In this episode Bart takes a question that, he joked upon hearing it, may easily have come from his Christian father:

“What is the basis for your morality? I am not asking what your morality says, such as ‘Do not gossip’, ‘Be trustworthy’ or ‘Be forgiving.’ I am asking the ‘Why?‘ question about your morality (‘Why should you not gossip?’, ‘Why should you be trustworthy?’, ‘Why should you be forgiving?’). For me, my ‘Why?’ used to be my belief that people inherently deserve to suffer the worst possible suffering for an endless amount of time. I no longer believe this, and I now recognize the harm that often results from my old moral foundation. My new moral foundation is, in part, the desire to decrease suffering. Why? Because a scenario where every conscious creature suffers as much as possible for as long as possible would be a bad thing. I can’t prove it, but I hope it is self-evident. So what is your moral foundation?”

Takeaways: There is no objective morality; the value of life is central; maximizing the flourishing of conscious beings is at the heart of it.

LISTEN HERE

Charles Vogl helps leaders transform loneliness and separation into connection and belonging. His book, The Art of Community, is the book Bart Campolo says he always wished he had to recommend to people who wanted to build their own groups and nurture them.

In this conversation between Charles and Bart, they talk about life’s ‘inner circles’, contributing to a richer world, moving from fear to generosity, and preparing for the hard work ahead.

Charles’s website can be found at CharlesVogl.com.

LISTEN HERE