Though there is an interesting quote to the effect of "if you're struck by a debilitating disease at 21, are you going to believe in God? I think not.".There are several incoherent assumptions in this. Let's start with:- God owes us health- the failure of health is evidence against GodIgnore the moral presumption of #1, and look at #2. If #2 is true, then no-one owes us health, and you get what you get. So we trade a god whom we feel is treating us unfairly for a world where fairness is fiction, and consider that an improvement. In doing so, we destroy the basis of the claim in #1, unless we believe that there is an explicit promise of good health rather than just a feeling we deserve it.In addition, the quote suggests it's reasonable for the victim to give up belief based on his own suffering but for a third party observer to continue to do so. Note that we're talking belief, not trust. If injustice of health denies God's existence (as opposed to a claim on loyalty), then it applies regardless of who is suffering. God's existence can't be conditional on our subjective experience! And yet the world today, by and large, wants to "believe" in a subjective God.
I think that overinterprets her statement. I don't think she's stating how people are supposed to react in that situation, but how they tend to react. She's explaining how that hardened her ex-husband against the Christian faith. She's tracing his antipathy back to that event.