Anger at God is nothing new. In the Hebrew Bible it goes back at least as far as Abraham, who, according to Genesis 18:23, was angry at God for God's readiness to destroy the innocent people of Sodom along with those who were guilty. One could also argue that it goes back even further, to the story of Cain found in Genesis 4:5. But however far back the notion of getting angry at God can be traced, it is also the topic of a newly released study by Case Western Reserve University psychologist, Julie Exline.
Among the most interesting findings in Exline's study are the place of anger at God in the lives of self-declared atheists, and also the compatibility of simultaneous anger and positive feelings about God. I mention positive feelings and not faith because, by definition, if one is angry at God, one clearly has faith in the existence of God. Were that not the case, at whom is one angry? That returns us to the first finding about non-believers and their anger at God.
Self-declared atheists, according to the study, not only report getting angry at God, but report higher levels of anger than that experienced by believers. How does that work? Why bother being angry at something which one doesn't believe even exists?
Some believers will rush to proclaim that this is proof of the old adage about there being no atheists in foxholes i.e. that when things get bad, we all realize that there is a God and seek that connection, even if it's one established through anger. That weak connection to God when things go bad may be true, but it certainly doesn't prove anything about the existence of God or the wisdom of believing that God exists.
Perhaps there is a God and perhaps there is not. While extremists on both sides of this debate hate to admit it, there is proof for neither conclusion. What this study tells us is that there is a human desire to express outrage at the existence of evil and tragedy. There appears to be a need to ascribe authorship and even will on the part of that author, when we experience tough times.
That need transcends the philosophical categories in which we often place ourselves, showing us that such categorizations are of limited use. In fact, while it does not appear that the study's finding are broken down by levels of attachment to one's atheism, my guess is that all but the most fanatical among them find themselves getting angry at the God they were certain didn't exist five minutes before the trauma that provoked the anger occurred. That in turn brings us to the second finding.
Anger at God and faith and positive feelings about God are entirely compatible. The notion that belief in God demands calm acceptance of everything that comes our way is simply absurd. That approach may serve some people well but clearly, most of us can hold together faith and anger at the same time, and telling people otherwise betrays our own inner spiritual wisdom.
I appreciate that for some theologians one ought never to be angry at God because that anger represents rage against that which by definition, by virtue of coming from God, is good and just. Those theologians belong alongside the atheists who insist that anger at God makes no sense and so it has no place in the life of a "good atheists." They all insist that philosophical consistency is more important than meaningful, usable spirituality. In other words, they put ideas before people, which is always a bad idea, whether it is done in the name of God or no God.
Believers get angry because whatever God may be out there deserves our anger, if that God is the author of our suffering. Our insistence that things need not simply be as they are affirms God's existence, at least in the mind of the believer, and calls that God to a new level of relationship.
Anger at God, dissatisfaction with the state of the world or the shape of our lives is not only compatible with faith; it is an act of faith. From Abraham to Moses and Jesus to Muhammad, realizing the unacceptability of the status quo, not simply accepting it as God's will, was the spark which lit the fuse of a new spiritual explosion.
Exline's study contains many interesting revelations and insights, but none more important than these two, at least not when it comes to a world often bitterly divided between atheists and religionists. This study shows that almost all of us are more complex than those reductive categories. It shows us that what we really need are atheists who are comfortable with anger at God as a kind belief, however momentary it may be, and religionists who admit that anger at God is not only possible, but is itself a necessary component in any healthy relationship with the God in whom they may believe.
Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Religious People Must Rally to Restore Sanity
Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist
Case psychologist Exline studies relationship of narcissistic ...
Anger at God common, even among atheists – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs
I don't need proof that there aren't invisible magical beings... but, I'm surprised that believers don't.
Next time please at least have some idea about what the study says before making up facts about what you wish it said.
To clarify: We are by NO means claiming that all nonbelievers are angry at God (or, more precisely, angry in response to an image or idea of God). We are also not claiming that anger is the primary source of nonbelief. Clearly there are many factors that feed into decisions about whether or not to believe in God: For example, intellectual, social, cultural, and emotional factors could all play a role in religious belief (for believers and nonbelievers alike).
What we have found is that SOME (not all!) people who do not believe in God report either: a) anger toward God as part of their history or b) anger when prompted to focus on a hypothetical image of God.
We interpret these findings to mean that the topic of anger toward God may have relevance for at least some nonbelievers; thus nonbelievers should not be automatically excluded from conversations about the topic. Our goal in our studies, then, is to be inclusive rather than leaving nonbelievers out. We recognize, however, that a believer's anger toward God is not the same as anger focused on a hypothetical image of God by an atheist or agnostic.
Based on comments here and elsewhere, we have made changes to our study to try to improve and clarify the questions intended for atheists and agnostics. We sincerely apologize for any errors or misunderstandings.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
You ask each participant to define what God means. My answer was, "God is an imaginary creature invented by people to explain our universe". I can talk about God just like I'd talk about Santa Claus, as a concept (meme, if I may) understood by everyone in my culture.
Later on, you ask me how I feel about God. You include the note, "Since you indicated that you do not believe in God, it's up to you how to answer the items below. (...)." But professor, I didn't get through college by leaving quiz questions blank. :-) And I *can* answer these questions, using the definition of God I just wrote.
So your question, "[Do] you currently feel angry at God?" translates to me as "[Do] you currently feel angry at the God meme in our culture?" I can answer yes to that.
But in the news summaries of your research, all they see is an atheist who says he's angry at God. They don't include the fact that I had just re-defined God from an imaginary entity to a very real meme, so they apply the normal definition and conclude I'm mad at a creature I claim doesn't exist..
"Since you indicated that you do not believe in God, it's up to you how to answer the items below. You may find it most accurate to answer "not at all", or other answers may seem more accurate to you. You may also skip to the next page without completing these items, if you prefer."
^^ The data you received from this question in my opinion are meaningless because the question is unreliable. You have zero context about how the participant is answering the question so you don't know what the exact question (in the participants mind) is being answered. I would recommend either giving a specific context to the instruction, or at least add a box to the question in which the participant can explain how he chose to answer the questions. This way you can properly recode the results later into how the participant chose to answer the question. Because, like I mentioned earlier, without a proper context you don't know what a participant is trying to communicate when he answers with a "6". I think this would greatly improve the accuracy of the conclusions reached from those sets of questions.
It works because believing a story is not necessary for getting into it. Or getting it, for that matter. The first time you read it, if you thought Saruman was going to be a good wizard and play a role much like that which Gandalf winds up playing, you could justly be angry at him when you find out that he betrays himself and the world by capitulating to Sauron. That doesn't mean you think Saruman actually exists. It means you were getting into the story, taking it seriously, and engaging emotionally as well as intellectually with the issues it raises.
No, you just think Zeus doesn't make sense as a hypothesis.
That is like finding a Hindu who is angry at Zeus or a Christian who is angry at Loki.
One is not angry at something they have no belief in.
So according to the survey some atheists USED (ie. when they where believers) to get angry at God, and others may get angry about the FICTITIOUS character in the Bible.
Perfectly understandable given that God is supposed to be all powerful and yet still allows so much suffering to occur to good people (and rewards so many bad people). Easy to understand why ex-believers got angry at God before they became atheists. As an atheist though when something goes wrong I don't waste time getting angry and frustrated at an external entity intentionally causing my grief as part of some sort of master plan. I simply accept the situation and try my best to rectify it.
Also understandable is how people can feel emotions towards fictional characters in books and movies. Given how Yahweh (aka God) is depicted in the Bible it's hardly surprising that he may evoke negative feelings. If I think about it I find myself having great sympathy with characters such as Adam, Eve, Lot, and many other victims of God's wrath. It doesn't mean I believe Adam and Eve existed though (in fact we know they didn't).
Seriously, I like to know, how can atheists be angry at a God they know for a fact man has created?
I sure don't whether there is a God or if yes, in what form it is....but what I sure do know is that you believers are all duped beyond belief. And I can not be angry at free will of others.