Religion

Religion is another catch-all "word of convenience" that confusingly combines different things into one name. As a result, most people assume that other religions (as in, not their own religion) are similar to their own religion (but different enough to be heretical).

Much confusion lies below the surface - for example, is Confucianism a religion? (Indonesian law deems it so.) Is Buddhism a religion if it does not worship gods? Is Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religion, when the ancient Greeks believed in gods? Daoism is often differentiated into two types: philosophical Daoism ("Daojia") and religious Daosim ("Daojiao") - is it a philosophy or a religion?

By creating the word, "religion," people sought to label what others believed and practiced into a same "category" of what they themselves believed and practiced. In this way, people try to make sense of the world, for better or for worse.

Generally, we can divide the world religions into two main categories:

• Theism: worshipping god(s)
• Cultivation: training the spirit

Theism

Theism is any kind of worship of a god or gods. "Gods" refer to any kind of metaphysical beings, usually of the more powerful sort - but can range from minor spirits, to local nature deities, to major powers. The key word in theism is following - people follow their god's commands, without thought, hoping to gain rewards.

Monotheism
Due to the influence of Abrahamic religions, the West tends to divide theism into monotheism (one god) and polytheism (many gods), but this is more an issue of nomenclature and self-supporting-bias (due to the perception that monotheism is superior); after all, Abrahamic religions like Christianity in fact have entire pantheons of metaphysical beings, both good and evil, and even half-breed mixes with humans - they just choose to not call these "gods." A theism with only one metaphysical being in the whole cosmology - a true monotheism - is exceedingly rare.

That said, self-designated monotheism is quite common today, including many Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam foremost), but also Dharmic religions like Sikhism and some branches of Hinduism (which can be interpreted in a monotheistic way). Even in Japan, as the native Shinto religion became largely ritualistic and devoid of substance, new sects called Sect Shinto emerged in the 19th century, which are for the most part pseudo-monotheistic (as in, they mainly worship one supreme god) versions of Shinto.

Strict monotheism is generally characterized by intolerance - after all, its default belief is that only their god is correct, and all others are heretical. Many wars and conquests were waged with monotheism as a trigger (before) or as a justification (after). Some wars were between slightly different sects of the same monotheistic religion.

Polytheism
Many gods was the default religion in ancient times; even the Abrahamic religions started out as polytheism (e.g. God had a wife named Asherah), until 2nd Temple Judaism changed that, removing all their other gods, and persecuting Jews who still worshipped them.

Generally in polytheism, whether Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc., gods represented various aspects like war, love, the sea, the hearth, death, and so forth. In that sense, polytheism was not generally intolerant, as worshippers of one goddess of love often considered another people's goddess of love as another incarnation or avatar of the same; for example, the Greek Aphrodite was considered the same as Egypt's Isis when the two cultures interacted with each other (and people often took up worship of the exotic version as well).

Cultivation

Other religions often do not worship gods at all; instead, they engage in training of the self. Cultivation refers to various systems designed to train an adept's abilities, in order to elevate themselves spiritually. The key word in cultivation is growth - people train the body, breath, and mind in order to evolve, so naturally those who have trained longer and harder have attained greater skill. We could call these adepts "artisans of the metaphysical."

This sort of "religion" is represented by some sects of Buddhism, Daoism, and others; some religions like Hinduism often combine theism with cultivation (e.g. the Shaivist sects); esoteric sects of Abrahamic faiths can involve some cultivation as well, e.g. Jewish Kabbalah and Muslim Sufism and even Quakerism.

Although called "religion," the training aspects often do not involve gods at all, and thus these parts are often extracted for non-religious public consumption: from Hinduism we get yoga, from Daoism we get taijiquan ("tai-chi"), and from Buddhism we get mindfulness meditation; all these have been scientifically researched and shown to have various benefits toward physical and mental health.

Because cultivative religions often do not involve worship of gods, some prefer to call these philosophies instead.

In general, cultivation can be divided into various levels:

• Physical
• Emotional
• Mental
• Spiritual

This division is generally cross-cultural, and can be seen in similar form in China, India, Greece, etc.

Religion is a very interesting subject, and there is much that can be learned from it, but humankind needs to take care to avoid its destructive tendencies borne from intolerance.

Love

Love is another word of convenience that uses one word to encompass many distinct concepts. Generally, "love" refers to any sort of powerful, generally positive emotion. Various cultures, however, have created more specific words that distinguish different kinds of "love."

For example, Christians are often familiar with Greek terms for love that are differentiated by their target and nature.

• Eros is sexual love (e.g. the sexual desire you feel when seeing someone you are attracted to)
• Storge is familiar love (e.g. the bonds you feel with your family members)
• Philia is friendly love (e.g. the fondness you feel for your friends)
• Agape is unconditional love (a love that requires nothing in return; usually used in Christianity to describe God's love - despite clear conditions being given, and horrific punishments dealt at a whim)

(Various vices can also be considered types of love: e.g. greed (love of money) or gluttony (love of food); in Greek, philautia is a word for self-love. Here, however, we focus on types of love towards other people.)

Buddhism has different terms for love that are differentiated by mode of action.

• Karuna is compassion or "passive" love (e.g. the feeling of sympathy when seeing another person in pain)
• Metta is loving-kindness or "active" love (e.g. a kind of love that emanates from persons, not as a response to something)

The ancient Chinese also defined different contrasting types of love.

• Ren or "love within society" from Confucianism is a kind of proper compassion within social interactions.
• Ci or "emanating love" from Daoism is similar to Metta and like the emanating love of a mother to her child.

We are often taught that love is a virtue to cultivate - but what kind of love?

When seeking a life partner, it is ideal to find a partner for whom you mutually feel the full range of love types (eros, storgi, philia, and agape). It is also good to cultivate both passive and active love (karuna and metta) with that partner. That love should be both within interaction and without (ren and ci).

When Jesus Christ spoke of love, which love did he mean? "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Today we often call this compassion - a type of love where we empathize, aid, and do not harm. If only we have this type of love, humankind could avoid wars and killing each other.

We can learn a lot about love from the wisdom of the ancients from the many cultures of the world.

Patriotism

Patriotism is a delusion and a false virtue that is one of many types of false groupings of people, used to strengthen a group at the expense of others. It is a specific type of loyalty, another false virtue that is however convenient to espouse. Patriotism's mechanism is to create perceived connections and shared identity between people who are by and large complete strangers. The purpose is to heighten cooperation and loyalty within one group; the problem is that naturally it also heightens aggression and antipathy toward those outside of the group.

Patriotism is but one form of groupism, where artificial groupings are defined in many ways. Groupings of people include:

• by family (nepotism)
• by tribe/team (tribalism)
• by town (town rivalry)
• by state/province (state rivalry)
• by country (patriotism)
• by language (linguistic discrimination)
• by race (racism)
• by religion (religious intolerance)
• by species - humans
• by kingdom - animals
• by life - organisms (ahimsa)
• by matter - non-space (animism)

Each grouping has some degree of artifice involved - e.g. "family" can perceived as nuclear or the whole "clan." Languages are usually defined politically and not linguistically (consider Swedish and Norwegian (mutually intelligible) vs. Cantonese and Mandarin (not intelligible)). State boundaries are often historically set by invaders, plopping multiple "nations" together.

Naturally, nations find patriotism most useful, and thus make efforts to instill this in their populace, usually through childhood education and the media, which they control. Often the arguments are inane, such as "our food is the best" or "our language is the best" or "we naturally are the most hard-working" and so forth. Like the more general loyalty, patriotism is about subtle control.

When patriotism becomes stronger, different words are used to name it:

Patriotism, nationalism, ultranationalism, jingoism, fascism.

Some simple questions can be used to test for patriotism.

• Do you feel pride in being a member of your country? (Did you choose to be born in your country?)
• Are you jubilant when a sports team of your country wins against a team of another country? Do you rage when they lose? (Do you even know anybody in those teams?)
• Do you feel insulted when someone criticizes your country? (Did you make your country that way?)

The various ethical systems can be compared qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative part is about actions - e.g., "Do not murder, do not steal," etc. are nearly universal. The quantitative part is straightforward - which groups does this ethical rule apply to? An ethical system that teaches to be ethical to just one's nation is thus quantitatively "less" than an ethical system that teaches to be ethical to all living things.

To move forward, humankind should emphasize togetherness, not difference, so that we can all thrive together.

Table of Contents

This blog is something like a book, but with pages added randomly, without order. If you don't know where to start, start here:

How we think: Bias, Group Idiocy, Evil, Intelligence.

Examples of group idiocy are the false virtues (delusions) below.

Concepts

Anti-Intelligence | Bias | Emotional Intelligence | Evil Triangle | Group Idiocy | Love | Univeral Ethics

False Virtues (Delusions)

Confidence | KPIs | Loyalty | Patriotism | Sex

Religion

Religion | Hell (and Heaven)

Hell

Hell, a horrible afterlife destination for the wicked, is a nearly universal belief, with specific names varying by culture: the Greeks called it Hades and Tarterus, the Norse Hel, the Indians Naraka, the Chinese Diyu, the Israelites Sheol, the Muslims Jahannam. Generally hell is depicted as a dark, gloomy, and fiery place, with various monstrous inhabitants within. Interestingly, different religions have different conditions on whether one will go to hell (or heaven).

In the case of Murgatroyd the Murderer, the result is simple: nearly every religion will deem his post-death abode to be hell - that is simple enough.

The case of Murgatroyd the Murderer who later in life repents and follows the holy path - is more interesting - what will his afterlife destination be?

In Christianity, the effect is like giving Murgatroyd a "free card" - his prior accumulated sin (despite its horrendousness) is forgiven and cleared away, and Murgatroyd goes to heaven along with the faithful for eternity - he does not have to "pay" for his sins. For Abrahamic religions, fealty is more important than one's actions, which results in this effect.

In Buddhism (and many Dharmic religions like Hinduism or Jainism, although it depends on the sect), there is no "free card" for Murgatroyd - his karma (actions) are his own, and he is responsible for them; thus, he will spend an unfathomably long time in hell to "pay" for his sins. On the other hand, his later following of the holy path is still good - it does not clear away his prior sins, but it does mean that after he finally "pays off" his time in hell, a better rebirth will be waiting for him.

What of the case of Bob the Virtuous Atheist? Different religions again have different viewpoints on where he will go after death.

In both Christianity and Islam, Bob's good deeds do not help him at all, and he goes straight to hell for eternity - because again, in these religions fealty (to the correct god) is the guiding principle, with actions just a helpful accessory or symptom.

In Buddhism (and many Dharmic religions), Bob's good deeds may land him in heaven in his next incarnation. Unlike Abrahamic religions, although one's existence in heaven is unimaginably long, it is not eternal, and heavenly beings also are subject to death and reincarnation; thus, heaven is not the ultimate objective in Buddhism (or Hinduism), although it is a nice place to be in. Also unlike Abrahamic faiths, fealty to a specific faith is irrelevant - virtue is virtue, and there is more than one path to heaven.

Bias

Bias is how humans make decisions. More specifically, bias is the phenomenon where thought diverges from logic due to emotion. Humankind makes decisions (including judgments) almost solely based on bias. This is easily illustrated by looking at politics - if a politician named "Donald" makes a speech, and both Republicans and Democrats watch the same speech, they nevertheless will have completely opposite responses to watching the exact same thing: Donald was amazing, perfect, eloquent, etc. vs. Donald was terrible, laughable, embarassing, stunting, etc. (We would see the opposite for a different politician - let's call him "Joe.")

This is a serious problem (are opinions based on reality at all?) - and not limited to politics. This happens in all parts of society, e.g. in school grading, in corporate promotions, in sports judging, in media "lynchings," etc. This happens even with apparent high levels of intelligence in the perpetrators. It is ubiquitous, fully permeating human existence.

There are many sorts of this, from nepotism ("my son is the smartest person I know!") to cronyism ("my buddy is the most amazing worker here!") to tribalism ("I am 100% convinced that the party line is true"); groupthink, or following the beliefs of a group, is an extremely common form of bias. Homo sapiens means "wise man" - but it is clear that most humans are not using their capabilities for rational thought at all.

Red flags to spot this sort of bias are simple - just think from the reverse direction. "Do I think that my children or friends are better than others?" (self-bias) "Do I agree with everything that my political party says?" (group bias) And so forth.

18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume said, "Reason is...the slave of the passions." What we find is that in general, we make decisions based on our "passions" - then, we use "reason" to justify it to others. In other words, we do not use our vaunted intelligence to actually make decisions, we only use it to make excuses as to why we made those decisions... which were made solely from bias. Bias is really powerful, don't underestimate its power.

What follows is that controlling biases is a very useful tool for the powerful. Thus, much effort goes into controlling the media, which can be used to control biases.

Another result of bias is - our stations in life are more a result of people's biases, as opposed to merit or real achievements. So it is good to be satisfied with our lot and not dwell too much in comparison.

In the meantime, let us all try to observe our biases so that we can recognize them as such and negate them. If we do so, we can begin to see glimpses of evolving into the true homo sapiens.

Finally, another use for understanding biases is to predict decisions - almost everyone will invariably select the choice that will benefit them most (self-bias). This can also be used to identify and examine biases.

Bias is a critical and ever-present part of almost everything that humans do; thus, always be aware of it.

Confidence

Confidence is an oft-considered "virtue" that is unique in that its effect (positive or negative) depends on its direction and magnitude. This contrasts with actual virtues which follow "the more, the better." Specifically, confidence and unconfidence are borne from lack of knowledge - this lack of certainty creates a gap, which is then mentally filled; its direction (bias) is based on temperament. The direction and magnitude create various forms of confidence and unconfidence, which directly influence action or non-action.

Despite confidence being a type of bias (toward self or others), and normally biases are seen negatively, confidence is a strange exception that exhibits cognitive dissonance.

It is also confusing in that there are many kinds of confidence - and so the term causes much confusion when saying things like "confidence is the most important attribute for a leader!" What does that even mean?

Actually, "confidence" is a confusing word, because it is a "word of convenience" that uses one word to encompass many different meanings, both positive and negative.

For example, we can use different names for different kinds of "confidence" by degree, e.g.:

• Self-Doubt (very low)
• Diffidence (low)
• Equanimity (neither low nor high)
• Confidence (high)
• Arrogance (very high)
• Narcissism (pathologically high)
• Hubris (extremely pathologically high)

Certainly we would not want a leader who has self-doubt, but on the other hand would we want a leader with narcissism, either?

We can name different types of confidence by aspect, e.g.:

• Vanity (confidence in one's physical appearance)
• Snobbery (confidence in one's economic class)
• Elitism (confidence in one's social group identity)

We can also name different kinds of confidence by target, e.g.:

• Self confidence (confidence in one's own abilities)
• Self esteem (confidence in one's own integrity)
• Belief in others (confidence in another's abilities)
• Trust in others (confidence in another's integrity)

For example, we may see a leader who appears confident in his own abilities, but looks down on others' abilities. What sort of effects might this have on his team?

We can also name types of confidence by the internal mechanisms, e.g.:

• Belief in self (appearance of confidence reflecting true self-belief, such as due to experience)
• Bluster (appearance of confidence hiding deep self-doubt, such as due to sensitivity to expectations)

Generally, confidence is antagonistic to humility (another term that can have multiple meanings). As a bias, confidence obstructs objectivity. Equanimity, or the lack of confidence and unconfidence, allows one to be free of this bias, and thus listen to new information and to appraise situations objectively. Confidence biases one towards oneself; lack of confidence biases one against oneself. Neither confidence nor lack of confidence aid us; both are hindrances that restrict our objectivity.

The other effect of confidence or lack of confidence is to affect performance or the perception thereof. This is of course what most people are interested in, but we need to keep in mind the potential negatives as well, and adjust to reap the benefits and not the traps.