Perhaps we're a bit unhappy at present. Alice was happy when she learned there would be pudding every other day, but unhappy when it was explained to her that today is never any other day. You might as well ask if we are going, gone, or still here. Where is there if we are always here? Luther took cheerfulness as a sign of grace, and devised a system in which the world was divided between enthusiasm and dissatisfaction, between godly mania and devilish depression, and, implicitly, between the saintly rich and profane poor. Science has no bearing until the grammar of dynamic difference is better understood. You can't bring humanity under instrumental reason by measuring hormones in the brain because we cannot understand what change really is in those terms.

Happiness is "different things to different people". I have found it to be so in most of my travels, relationships, friendships and associations. I did not know that there was a budding science of happiness, but, I suppose it would have to have arisen, sooner or later, inasmuch as people are realizing that the THINGS they pursue, and yes, PEOPLE too, are not bringing them the sorts of happy feelings they expected. Happiness is not a patently either/or proposition. I, for one, have been happier with my life when I had less money and fewer possessions, yet looked forward to each day as a new series of adventures. I was not then, nor am I now, an eternally cheerful, perenially hopeless optimist. Some people, places and circumstances bring out the moody "grumper" in me. Those who have those same reactions yet strive to mask and ignore them often develop serious physical and/or mental illnesses. Those of us who have some sort of unshakable belief are probably healthier overall, but this does not guarantee that we are good for the herd. Or that we are automatically among the happy.
I have long read several noted thinkers of our time, including the Horsemen (Dawkins; Dennett; and Harris---RIP Chris Hitchens). Dawkins latest memoirs are a pleasure: An Appetite for Wonder and Brief Candle in the Dark. He writes with the easy comfort of someone who knows who he is and is grateful, even happy, with how and when he got there. May we presume that Richard Dawkins is a happy human being? I could opine as much, but those who care to reach their own conclusion(s) would need to investigate for themselves. Success would seem to be a factor here-and some kind of unshakable belief. Perhaps even before those, however, there needs to be PURPOSE. I wonder if Mr. Dawkins knows about a science of happiness? I don't know him, but I'd almost bet on it. He certainly seems to have had some fun in his seventy-plus years. And that is very likely a part of the happiness equation as well.
Neuman.

The god delusion is not supplanted effectively by rational purpose because time thwarts both. And though time often brings unhappiness, it also even more often so dispels the myth of transcendence in serendipity that we can hardly fail to recognize an abundance in it that no god or rational purpose could ever pretend to ordain or anticipate. Time is what abundance is. There is no other happiness so real as recognition of that abundance.

                           Happiness is subjective. Humans will never be happy as long as we exist, we'll only be content. We are, and will always be in the search for more, no matter how "un-materialistic" we think of ourselves to be. We are in the age of technology and knowledge,and those two combined create an explosive pair. The amount of technology and knowledge we have at our fingertips is mind blowing, and its acting as catalyst for change in our brains. That change is consistently telling us we want more. The more we desire, the less "happy" we are. It's like humans are biologically programmed to just be content.