God’s Emotions: Why the Biblical God is So Human Part 1 of 8

The question we forget to ask.

Do you remember the joke about the little Scottish boy who refuses to eat two nasty shriveled prunes on his plate?  His mother cajoles and pleads. Finally she tells him, as she has many times before, that if he doesn’t obey her, God will be angry. Usually it works, but this time the stubborn child holds out, and the mother, herself angry, sends him straight to bed. No sooner does he get there than a storm sets in, with lightning and thunder crashing around them. Feeling contrite and thinking that her child must be terrified, the mother sneaks to her son’s room to reassure him. She opens the door quietly, expecting to find him burrowed under the covers. But no, he is at the window, peering out into the night. As she watches, he shakes his head and says in an incredulous, reproving voice, “Such a fuss to make over two prunes!”

In the Hebrew Bible, in the book of 1 Samuel, the Philistines are battling with God’s chosen people, the Israelites. The Israelites have a very special object, which you might recognize from the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is the Ark of the Covenant, a box made of wood covered in gold with sculptured angels on top and a golden jar inside. Maybe it contains manna—food that dropped from heaven. Or maybe it contains fragments of stone tablets. At any rate, the Philistines capture it in battle. The Israelites are angry, and God gets angry, too. No sooner do those Philistines cart off the box, than plagues befall them. A Plague of mice, for example. Then the ark is taken from town to town, but the men of each town get hemorrhoids, which must have been particularly wretched in the days before toilet paper and Preparation H. (Don’t miss the full story; the resolution is awesome. 1 Samuel 6: 1-15.) Mice and hemorrhoids. Such a fuss over a golden box!

In other stories from the Bible, both Old Testament and New, God gets angry and does things that strike us as a rather big fuss. In Second Kings, for example, the prophet Elijah gets mad because some kids (boys of course) are making fun of him and calling him Baldhead. Elijah curses them, and apparently God is mad too, because he sends two female bears out of the woods and they maul and kill forty-two of those boys  (2 Kings 2: 23-24). In the book of Matthew, Jesus is traveling along and he sees a fig tree. He is hungry, so he goes over to it. But it is bare because –as the writer tells us—figs aren’t in season. So Jesus gets angry and curses the tree, and it withers and dies on the spot. (Matthew 21:18-19).

In all of these stories, what jumps out at most of us is a sense of disproportionality. God’s reaction seems so out of scale with the transgression!  That is what makes us laugh at the joke, because the little boy notices it when his mom doesn’t expect him to; and it is what makes biblical literalists squirm about the other stories. We expect God to not be the kind of guy who needs anger management classes. He shouldn’t need to breathe deep and leave the room lest he, heaven forbid, do something he will regret. (Note: If you research these stories you will find all manner of convoluted apologetics arguing that God’s reactions were in fact proportional. Those forty two lads were Crips and Bloods carrying switchblades . . . . ) 

Adolescent psychologist Laura Kastner recently wrote an acclaimed book about parenting during the teen years. The book, Getting to Calm, is about “emotional regulation”—getting yourself into a modulated sensible mental space so that you can teach self-regulation to your kid, whose frontal lobe isn’t quite all there yet. According to Kastner, calling in the she-bears means that we, as parents, have failed at our own mission—we’re in melt-down right along with our teens.

 We expect God to be good at emotional regulation, even better at it than Dr. Kastner asks parents to be when faced with teens gone haywire. (If I have to “be the adult in the room,” then God does too; after all, He should have this stuff mastered.)  Another way of saying this is that we expect God to have a very high “E-Q” (Emotional Quotient). When this seems to be violated, we experience dissonance, and we may laugh, question our beliefs, or make intellectual moves to restore a sense of consistency.

What doesn’t strike us as bizarre, in fact, what we tend accept without thought, is the storyteller’s assumption that God has emotions. We don’t expect Him not to have emotions, or that would be crux of the joke: Isn’t it funny–the kid and his mom think that God gets angry!  We simply expect Him to have a sense of proportion. The idea that God has emotions seems so natural that most people who believe in gods never question it. The God of the Bible gets angry, has regrets, gets lonely, loves, has loyalties, is jealous, feels compassion, and is vindictive. In the incarnation of Jesus, he also is afraid and weeps.

For a psychology nerd like me, that is fascinating, and I think when you finish reading this series you’ll understand why. Starting just from abstractions or the evidence of the natural world, it isn’t a given that the force that designed the DNA code would get mad or sad or jealous. Or rather I should say, it isn’t a given – in the abstract. We will see that once we add a human interpreter, the idea that God is loving or angry or lonely become as natural as the idea that angels have two legs.

In religion, people make guesses about what is real based on highly ambiguous evidence. If the evidence weren’t ambiguous, there wouldn’t be so many disagreements – literally thousands of branches of Christianity alone. But those same ambiguities that make it so hard to come to agreement about God make religion very interesting from the standpoint of understanding our own psychology. In some ways, the concept of God is like an ink-blot test. The blot is there, but what you see in it depends on who you are.

All of us engage in a process that Sigmund Freud called “projection,” and in fact, those ink blot tests are known in the trade as projective tests. Projection, by definition, is a matter of mistaking internal realities for external realities. If I look at a random ink blot and I see exploding bombs, a therapist might wonder if I am angry or worried (or living in a war zone.)  Projection happens particularly in social situations and when we are faced with ambiguities. We are angry, so we assume family members are angry at us. We feel rejected, so we assume our colleagues feel rejecting. We are dishonest, and so we mistrust the people we deceive.

How about our images of God?  Which ones come from something outside us and which are projections of our own psyches?  Answering this question is a process of elimination; to come any closer to knowing what is out there, we need to start by scrubbing our god concepts of anthropomorphism—or projection. We now know quite a bit about the human mind, how it constrains our imaginations by forcing information into boxes called ontological categories and what kinds of cognitive errors (including projection) it is prone to. Two years ago I wrote an article entitled “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science”. This article is intended to complement that one by examining another chunk of what is known about the human psyche—in this case human emotions–, and to look at the biblical god concept through that lens.

You have probably heard the saying, “In some ways I am like no other person, in some ways like some other people, and in some ways like every other person.”  For anyone who has a god-concept, all three of these dimensions shape it.

  • Your image of God is shaped by your personal upbringing and present state of mind. If you have more authoritarian parents, you are more likely to see God as a strict father. If you are lonely, you are more likely to see god as wrathful (Schwab & Peterson, 1990). If you feel good about yourself you are more likely to see God as loving (Benson & Spilka, 1973).
  •  It is also shaped by your culture:  If your culture is bellicose, your God likely approves of war. If it accepts homosexuality as part of a natural spectrum, you God is likely to become less disapproving of it.
  •  Lastly, your God concept is shaped by your species. If your species has a mammalian, primate, homo sapiens sapiens mind, your God probably does too. Not that we have a great sample to consider. We have one species with god concepts on this planet, to be exact. What we can say is that across cultures, regardless of what physical form gods may take (male/female, animal, tree, spirit) these deities have strikingly human psyches. (See Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained).

 It is this third dimension is what will be the focus of this series. Specifically, we will be looking at how God’s emotions are depicted in the Bible, what is now known about emotions as physical and social phenomena, and how these two intersect.  In the process, we may learn something useful about ourselves.

Coming segments will address the following topics:

  1. What is psychology capable of telling us about the mind of God
  2. Do Christians Really Think God Has Emotions?
  3. Emotions 101— form, function and evolutionary psychobiology
  4. God’s Temper –Social hierarchies, power, and anger
  5. What Pleases God and high status humans
  6. Stepford Jesus? (love, narcissism, introjected parents)
  7. God Hates the Same People I Do (cognitive dissonance theory and projective processes)
  8. If God were a Dog –or a Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

Dig Deeper

Benson, P. L., and B. Spilka (1973). God image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12(3), 297–310.

Boyer, Pascal.  Religion Explained, NY: Basic Books, 2001.

Kastner, Laura. Getting to Calm. Seattle, USA:  Parent Map, 2009.

Schwab, R., and Petersen, K. U. (1990). Religiousness: Its relation to loneliness, neuroticism and subjective well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(3), 335–345.

Barrett, Justin L., and Frank C. Keil, (1996). “Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts” Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219–247.

Advertisements

About Valerie Tarico

Seattle psychologist and writer. Author - Trusting Doubt and Deas and Other Imaginings. Founder - www.WisdomCommons.org.
Gallery | This entry was posted in God's Emotions: Why The Biblical God is So Very Human and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to God’s Emotions: Why the Biblical God is So Human Part 1 of 8

  1. Edwardson says:

    Mythologies, past and present, are fascinating in that they provide insights into human psychology. That people believe in the literal existence of the supernatural protagonists in their stories is most interesting. Among others, it shows how homo sapiens don’t have hard wiring that affords us a “baloney detector” or software that boots up from birth which allows us to distinguish real from unreal, to discern between good models of reality and wishful thinking. That anthropomorphism is the norm in popular religion is both humorous and sad. I will hazard a guess that if religions had impersonal/transpersonal “higher powers” instead of kings with empires in the clouds they would likely be less violent and more benign, perhaps more open to reason and the scientific mode of thought and inquiry.

    Like

  2. Perhaps the concept, the awareness of a God is implicit in every sentient being. If intelligence is a natural result of evolution, then God is simply the ultimate, supreme intelligence. His existence is almost assured because we exist and we are cognizant. It’s simply a matter of ‘degree.’ The more we become aware of the Universe, the more convinced I’ve become that God is a viable concept. We perceive him in the same way that children perceive their limited world. As we become wiser, our perceptions of God change and mature. In one hundred years, or one thousand, God(s) may no longer be defined by human emotions and situations that have been mankind’s introduction to a God-concept. I don’t think the underlying concept of a Supreme Being will ever change, no matter how far into the future man, or intelligence, endures. Someone, or some thing will always be smarter and better and way ahead of us. God is the ultimate intelligence.

    Like

  3. Edwardson says:

    “If intelligence is a natural result of evolution, then God is simply the ultimate, supreme intelligence.”

    Does that mean that “God” is an advanced, ultra intelligent (extra)terrestrial? Intelligence is based on neurons. I think (exo)biologists would want to know where the neurons of this “supreme intelligence”can be found. Is this intelligence carbon and DNA based as well? Those neurons require a body to sustain it. That body needs to obtain nutrition. How does this supreme intelligence nourish itself? You rightly say that intelligence evolved. That means there are transitional forms/species that lead up to this “supreme” lifeform (evolution proceeds by gradual steps not monumental leaps). Have we found any of these species? And what exactly do you mean by “ultimate” and “supreme”? If evolution continues and gives us God 2.0, will the current version still be ultimate and supreme?

    “His existence is almost assured because we exist and we are cognizant. ”

    I don’t see how a vastly more intelligent life form is almost sure to exist merely on the basis of our existence. Your argument is:

    Intelligence evolved.
    Humans exist.
    Humans are intelligent.
    Therefore a being that is far far far superior in intelligence almost surely exists.

    I fail to see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Perhaps you can provide the unwrit statements.

    Like

  4. Suzanne Olsson says:

    Dear Edwardson,
    It is my understanding that intelligence is not limited to carbon forms. Intelligence can be silicon. Light photons may also be a form of intelligence. Do you know what travels as fast as the speed of light? Thought transmissions do. Do you know how the ancient prophets described God? As light. Intelligence without form or sustance. Theirs was not so much a view of the past as a great leap of faith to what we have yet to learn in our future.

    Like

  5. Suzanne Olsson says:

    Dear Edwardson, I am just reading your blog. Now I understand you better. Interesting. :-)

    Like

  6. Edwardson says:

    That’s an intriguing hypothesis–that electromagnetic radiation can somehow become intelligent. How that would occur, however, is problematic. I don’t think there is any known means by which it can do so. It seems to me that matter and energy need to interact with one another to produce intelligence. On the other hand, using ER to transmit intelligence (information) is commonplace. We use infrared light to remotely control our appliances and fiber optics for telecommunication.

    As for the speed of thought, I presume that is limited by how fast electrochemical processes in neurons can take place. It would hardly be anywhere close to the speed of ER. And there is no evidence that thoughts can get transmitted outside the bounds of neurons. There has been no strictly controlled, properly blinded ESP/psi experiment that has succeeded in showing this.

    Like

  7. Dear Edwardson,
    I beg to differ with you as the world is full of examples of intellect-sensory perceptions-ESP-and “God-like” experiences.
    Every living thing contains neurons that communicate electrically within and without a physical body. This is what keeps it alive., awareness through sensory perception of many levels of activity in the Universe around it.
    The sensory neurons do seem to act and react outside the body as well as performing their main function, which is to gather all external and internal information relevent to keeping a body alive and functioning. The electrical activity involved is based upon ions that exist both outside and within the body. They are in constant “comminication” through electrical activity given off by neurons at every second. Neurons are not unique to life as we know it, but are unique to the Universe as a complete entity. If life as we know it recognizes and communicates with ions at close range, which are in turn linked to ions at greater distances, then in essence, it’s all connected anyway. In theory communication across vast fields of connected neurons is possible…via electrical impulses or through light-photon conduits, et cetera.

    I am no Richard Feynman..It is all just theory.. I am merely stating that until proven otherwise, one theory is as probable as another, including the basic premise that man can, and has communicated with intelligence that is NOT carbon-based in nature. How he interprets those experiences for himself and for others is what is questionable at this moment in our history.

    All the best, Sue

    Like

  8. Edwardson says:

    Interesting hypothesis. Thanks for sharing Sue.

    Like

  9. Bill says:

    The problem is….. we still don’t have any proof that a god or god’s exist. Everything else is pure speculation of it’s nature or intelligence.

    Like

  10. Pingback: God’s Emotions: Second Series Concerning the Psychology of Religion By Valerie Tarico | God Discussion

  11. The largest single factor in the survival of human beings in other human beings. As a result, most of our brain circuitry evolved to deal with persons and relationships. As a result of that, we are inclined to anthropomorphize *everything*, including cars and copy machines. (Our office copier is old, cranky, easily irritated, and refuses to work for very long at one time without a breakdown.) Our intelligence did not evolve to deal rationally with the problems of the natural world, like fires and gravity; it evolved to convince other human beings to admire us, cooperate with us, and help us out. Which is why we are SO much better at rationalization than we are at reasoning, why we anthropomorphize gods, and why, once we anthropomorphize them, we may become anxious to please them – and manipulate them.

    Like

  12. Gunther says:

    Another brilliantly written article. Reminds me of the British Army where you get on a charge on such trivia matter or a police officer getting angry because you dare question his/her authority and he/she comes up with all these imaginary laws to justified for detaining you or to charge you.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s