In order to be unhappy "about" a fact, the fact has to have some meaning... a meaning which can exist only in your map, not the territory, since the fact or its converse have to have some utility -- and the territory doesn't come with utility labels attached.

However, there's another source of possible misunderstanding here: my mental model of the brain includes distinct systems for utility and disutility -- what I usually refer to as the pain brain and gain brain. The gain brain governs approach to things you want, while the pain brain governs avoidance of things you don't want.

In theory, you don't need anything this complex - you could just have a single utility function to squeeze your futures with. But in practice, we have these systems for historical reasons: an animal works differently depending on whether it's chasing something or being chased.

What we call "unhappiness" is not merely the absence of happiness, it's the activation of the "pain-avoidance" system -- a system that's largely superfluous (given our now-greater reasoning capacity) unless you're actually being chased by something.

So, from my perspective, it's irrational to maintain any belief that has the effect of activating the the pain brain in situations that don't require an urgent, "this is a real emergency" type of response. In all other kinds of situations, pain-brain responses are less useful because they are:

• more emotional
• more urgent and stressful
• less deep thinking
• less creativity and willingness to explore options
• less risk-taking

And while these characteristics could potentially be life-saving in a truly urgent emergency... they are pretty much life-destroying in all other contexts.

So, while you might have a preference that people not be religious (for example), there is no need for this preference not being met, to cause you any actual unhappiness.

In other words, you can be happy about a condition X being met in reality, without also requiring that you be unhappy when condition X is not met.