One of the things I e heard about Denmark is that its tax code redistributes wealth to such an extent that a florist makes about what a doctor makes. As a consequence, people there actually do what they enjoy or are called to instead of trying to make money. The government has eliminated that false god. It also has a state religion (evangelical Christian, I think) so I suspect the non-religious dont bother fighting about separation of church and state, as there's no expectation of that. I wonder if that state-imposed Christianity (no participation required) wields enough influence on the laws to create the kind of society that makes people happy.

Yes, Denmark is an interesting case. I think part of the reason for the happiness of Danes is the cultural homogeneity of Denmark, but I'm certainly not speaking as an expert. How well do you think the situation in Denmark matches with the claims made in the OP?

Thanks, Peter! That was interesting. Denmark is such an interesting situation. I've read other articles that talk about the happiness level there, but they attributed it to the social systems. In which case causation is definitely a factor. If you create a society with little fear, do you end up less religious? Or was it the other way around to begin with?

Granted, and the historicity of Adam and Eve is besides the point. Please don't write off the point I'm trying to make simply because I used biblical figures to illustrate that point. The question that was asked directly pertains to "what the Church teaches," and I answered that question within the Christian framework. Regardless of what I mean by "Adam and Eve," my point still stands.

I think it is a bit futile to talk about Adam and Eve to people who question Christianity and/or all religion. Even the Catechism says the story is in "figurative language." The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is fascinating and could be discussed endlessly. But speaking of Adam and Eve as if they were two real people who ate forbidden fruit is not going to be meaningful even to a great many believing Christians, let alone those who doubt or disbelieve.

I tried the search and saw that the sense of community and friendships people have at their churches plays a significant role in life satisfaction. Is this the explanation you mean?

That is one of the many explanations I referred to. The first hit suggest the explanation that religious folk are less likely to suffer `death anxiety' because of the comforting narratives of religion. Some other proposed explanations can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness

Just a note that you are endowing too much on the group "atheist". Though, atheists may share many secularly moral values or standard these are not derived from atheism in any way.

I would actually say that we have generally identical views of human worth and morality. I am an atheist but my moral framework is more aligned with humanism, which states that human life and dignity are the highest values, and the avoidance of human suffering and furtherance of human flourishing are paramount goals. I think we would generally agree on most moral questions. The main exceptions being equality, reproductive rights and blasphemy.

Tarring us with the same brush and accusing all atheists of "using sex for cheap thrills and calling it love" could be considered offensive. I use sex for profound thrills and love, and making babies. I have had extensive pre-marital sex with several partners. I would not describe any of it has cheap, most of it as very thrilling, but always respectful consensual, intimate and joyous. The best being with a single partner with whom I am deeply in love.

If I didn't like animals so much I might think you were being perjorative. I am an animal and so are you. Embrace it, it's great.

What we don't do is tell children that they are violating the supreme law of God to want to masterbate, have homosexual relations, to simply get turned on and be horny. There is nothing wrong with these things as far as I can tell.

With all due respect to Kevin, I would disagree with him when he says that it is God who intended that we not find perfect happiness in this life, though I understand where he is coming from. God intended our happiness in the beginning, and He intended our happiness by showing the world His face in the person of Jesus Christ. God intends our perfect happiness, and went to great lengths to achieve that for us. He did not "mean" for us to be unhappy. So who did?

I think nobody intended it. If anyone is to blame, it would be humanity itself. Often times we do things with the intention of gaining happiness, but end up disappointed. For example, a person might spend many hours in the sun for sport, tanning, or whatever. Their intention is to be happy, or find happiness. If, as a result, they get some kind of skin cancer, it isn't because they intended it, but I would certainly not say that, if they didn't mean for it to happen, then God must have meant for it to happen. Original Sin is another prime example: the attempt to create one's own happiness apart from God must have been appealing at first, but by the time Adam and Eve realized that there is no happiness without God, it was a little too late.

When Father Barron uses the word "meant," I don't think he's referring to anyone's intention. Rather, I think he's using it to suggest that unhappiness and discord is the inevitable result of so many people trying to find perfect happiness apart from God (much like Adam and Eve themselves tried to do). In the same sense, if I saw kids playing with fire, and one of them burns his hand, I might say, "That was meant to happen." In saying that, I'm not suggesting intention, but rather that getting burnt is the inevitable result of repeatedly playing with fire.

Returning to the question, then, I say that God does mean for us to be perfectly happy, and that we are able to have a foretaste of perfect happiness in this life. I realize it might sound like I'm contradicting Fr. Barron a bit here, but, in context, I don't think Fr. Barron is trying to disprove the possibility of perfect happiness in this life as much as He is trying to assert that perfect happiness comes from God, who transcends this life. To the extent that we are not perfectly happy in this life, it is because unhappiness is the "inevitable result" of the false promises of secular humanism that rule the day, wherein happiness comes from ourselves or material things as opposed to God, combined with the greed and hedonism that are so common in so many places - even in the Church at times, unfortunately. For that reason, Fr. Barron rightly quotes St. Thomas: "Our hearts are restless until they rest in you."

I tried the search and saw that the sense of community and friendships people have at their churches plays a significant role in life satisfaction. Is this the explanation you mean? I saw another study that was comparing religions and GDP and such, but it was too dense for me to understand so I wasn't sure what the conclusions are. I think that's the one that would be most helpful, though, as I would like to know if, comparing people of equal income or beauty or sexual activity, having more makes you happier. Or if religious belief affects your sense of satisfaction allowing for those things. I guess I'm picturing nuns and monks (Catholic, Buddhist) who give up everything yet always seem content.

Interesting. I like those levels! Thanks for the link. It's funny to see a priest so business like. :)