I read most of the article and it's great that some countries in Europe are more enlightened than this one.

This article describes what Phil wishes were true - not what is apparently true.

What impression does a headline like "The happiest nations on Earth are strongly secular" leave in the reader's mind?

That these nations which, by some measure, have been deemed "happiest" can be fairly described as more secular than not, at minimum, right? If not maybe nearly completely secular, right? How many ways can one reasonably interpret the phrase "are strongly secular"?

So let's look at independent (independent of Phil) reports.

Let's look at the top three listed by Phil's referenced World Happiness Report - Finland, Denmark and Iceland.

In Finland, 66.6% of the population are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, with smatterings of other religions, and 30.6% unaffiliated.

In Denmark, 74.4% of the population are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, with smatterings of other religions, and under 20% identifying as atheist.

In Iceland, 62.28% of the population are members of the Church of Iceland (Lutheran) with smatterings of other religions, and 7.57% unaffiliated.

By comparison, in the U.S. the Catholics and Protestants combined make up about 63% of the population, with smatterings of other religions and a reported 18% unaffiliated. Not dramatically different, statistically from the "happy"nations, but we came in at only 16th place in the Happy Chart.

So are nations which are 60 to 75 percent religious properly described as “strongly secular”?

Phil acknowledges that…
“Of course, happiness is a doggedly subjective concept. Personally, having lived in Scandinavia for over two years, I would not describe Nordic folks as “happy,” per se. Aside from our dear friends and relatives there who are warm and loving, I’d describe the average Scandinavian you pass on the street as fairly taciturn, earnest, private, and a tad aloof. But happy? Uh…no.”

And that…

“To assert that they are happy because they are secular is not statistically warranted; it would be a bald case of apparent correlation but not proven causation.”

But he goes right on using hyperbolic language like…

“For instance, Norway has not only seen its church membership plummet…”

Plummet? What does that suggest? Dropping like a rock - straight down? Like huge percentages of their membership evaporating overnight? Or maybe in a year’s time?

No, in this case “plummet” means dribbling from a half percent to one and a half percent per year with that trend even slowing in recent years.

Looks like that slow leak is going to have to continue unabated for another century before anything like a “plummet” is achieved.

He wants to equate religiosity only with a belief in a literal god-person, or with regular church attendance, when maybe the Nordic folks take their religion to be more a cultural attitude, and a way to mark special occasions. Their weekly church attendance is low but most of them attend baptisms, marriages, and funerals performed by the church.

The truth is, from any historical perspective, their culture and values are deeply and profoundly Christian - not secular.

The heinous distortions religious fundamentalists have brought to the religious marketplace need to be seen for what they are - anti-progress, anti-life, and anti-religious. But the best way to fight them is not to make hyperbolic claims about the whole religious enterprise, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s more effective, in the long run, to just state the measurable facts, and let the chips fall where they may. Phil is behaving like an unscientific alarmist. It’s not helpful to the cause of reducing the damage done by religious fanaticism.

Not really surprising when the main 'messages' of religion are:-

'You're a SINNER, destined for eternal torment unless you grovel like a terrified, beaten child!'

and

'Anyone who dares to not love me, not worship me, not fear me, or not attend my holy places and pop their money in the collection are EVIL! You should mis-trust them! You should assume they are your enemies!'

Also compare with this. [rsf.org] Perhaps some countries are just moving forward on all fronts, and of course some are going backwards. ( USA is at forty nine. )

Perhaps that goes to show that people relying on their own ingenuity and sense of kindness and fairness get along just fine toward attaining happiness.

I hope the rest of the world takes notice.

Fantastic wonderful, amazing IF only the rest of the world and human kind would do the same then the song by John Lennon would indeed come true.

That does not surprise me.

No. They usually have the better society.

An interestingly different interpretation of the data goes like this: The more strife and inequity there is in a society, the more likely people are to be attracted to religion as a coping mechanism. Conversely, when social problems are reduced and freedoms,prosperity, equality and education increase people start to lose interest in traditional religions. So religious belief or lack thereof is a reaction to, not a cause, of societal contentment. But then the outlier, on this view, becomes the USA; which, unlike other prosperous secular democracies has remained highly religious despite material gains.

Why wouldn't people be happier after stepping out from under the oppression of an invented, imaginary, morally twisted, vengeful, angry god and his earthly army of sycophants?