Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

3.96 · Rating Details · 3,278 Ratings · 219 Reviews

Throughout the ages, many of the world's greatest thinkers have wrestled with the concept of -- and belief in -- God. It may seem unlikely that any new arguments or insights could be raised, but the twentieth century managed to produce two brilliant men with two diametrically opposed views about the question of God: Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis. They never had an actual m ...more

Paperback, 295 pages

Published August 7th 2003 by Free Press (first published 1988)

More Details... edit details

Get a copy:

Or buy for

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Question of God, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about The Question of God

Lists with This Book

Must Read Books for the Thinking Christian

692 books — 527 voters

The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud

Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality by Sigmund Freud

The Psychopathology of Everyday Life by Sigmund Freud

Beyond the Pleasure Principle and Other Writings by Sigmund Freud

Freud and Psychoanalysis

31 books — 29 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30)

filter | sort: default (?) | Rating Details

Sep 12, 2014 Kris rated it liked it

Shelves: c-s-lewis-related, nonfiction, christian-faith

A good premise, but a flawed execution. Worth reading if you have an interest in one of the men, but I wouldn't hold this up as a prime example of scholarship...

Nicholi never quite gets into his groove when he discusses these two men. Sometimes he switches back and forth between them with each paragraph, and sometimes he devotes whole long sections to one man, before ending it and moving on to another long section for the next. He constantly throws in quotes, but never really addresses, evaluate A good premise, but a flawed execution. Worth reading if you have an interest in one of the men, but I wouldn't hold this up as a prime example of scholarship...

Nicholi never quite gets into his groove when he discusses these two men. Sometimes he switches back and forth between them with each paragraph, and sometimes he devotes whole long sections to one man, before ending it and moving on to another long section for the next. He constantly throws in quotes, but never really addresses, evaluates, or analyzes them enough for the reader -- he should be using quotes to get a sense for who the man is, pointing out unique characteristics, distinctions in personality, inconsistencies in worldview... but so often he leaves the quote hanging there and moves on to another idea.

There were also key points in Lewis's life that he got wrong or ignored. Nicholi refers to The Screwtape Letters as "an address at a dinner for young devils in training" -- but this is not the format for The Screwtape Letters. The Screwtape Letters are letters from one demon to another over a long period of time. It's Screwtape Proposes a Toast that is formatted as an address at a dinner, which is section of prose Lewis added as an addendum to the book publication 15 years later. Nicholi also never addresses Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore at all, which is often claimed to have been romantic, in his section on sex and love.

And for being a debate, this discussion seems a little off-kilter. On the one hand you have a late 19th century scientist writing in the medical field, and on the other hand an early 20th century classicist/apologist, writing about literature and philosophy. It's clear who Nicholi favors in this comparison, and if I were an atheist I think I would be very annoyed by how shallow he takes some of Freud's points. There's a reason these two men never met or talked, and often this debate felt contrived, forced, and uneven.

Often Nicholi lapses into purely biographical information for these authors in his "debate" -- something necessary only to a certain degree in a comparative book like this. Throwing out facts and quotes from a person's life doesn't make for a good "debate" unless you are actually going to contrast and juxtapose the two points of view. So often he throws out useless questions, but this is not a classroom where students need to think about these issues to study for a test -- this is a scholarly, researched, analytical book that should be doing the thinking for the reader! So often I winced at formulaic questions like "So what was Freud's views on topic A?" or "Can the answer to Freud's views on this be seen in his life and writings?" or "So is love really only about sex?" (the last one is actually on page 162).

Sometimes he even throws in his own perspective with a few "I did this..." statements, and two sentences later he's quoting Freud saying "I think this..." with barely any transition. It's disorienting for the reader to be tossed around so much. Nicholi even is so self-inflated as to put in a "I have often wondered why," about the fact that Anna Freud never married. Why don't you actually analyze why you think she never married, instead of commenting that you're curious!? Nicholi needed an editor to chop stuff out and heavily rearrange his ideas. And make him write more.

Good topics about good authors, but this guy's definitely no Alister E. McGrath.
...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Mar 20, 2008 David rated it liked it

Shelves: read-in-2008

I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel about this book. It was for sure worth the read; I learned a lot, and I went through different emotions as I read it and thought both about the material in the book and how the ideas fit into my life. The book is flawed, in my opinion, but could of the bias it takes on the side of Lewis. It's main argument boiled down to: Freud had a depressing life and was an atheist, Lewis had an enjoyable life and was a believer, ergo, believing is the right way to go. I I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel about this book. It was for sure worth the read; I learned a lot, and I went through different emotions as I read it and thought both about the material in the book and how the ideas fit into my life. The book is flawed, in my opinion, but could of the bias it takes on the side of Lewis. It's main argument boiled down to: Freud had a depressing life and was an atheist, Lewis had an enjoyable life and was a believer, ergo, believing is the right way to go. I don't think this makes Lewis' worldview right or Freud's wrong, but instead are the possible costs/benefits of these worldviews.

And yet, I am compelled to somewhat agree with this, though not quite full-heartily. I've been agnostic all of my adult life, and while secular humanism, to me, has a wonderful, uplifting aspect to it, this aspect kinda has a peak to it, and you can only suck so much out of that peak at any one time. The rest of this worldview has a lot of emptiness and despair in to it. This is what troubled Freud most of his life, what troubled Lewis during the first half of his life, and has recently been shaking my own "non belief."

I think that both Freud and Lewis have accurate views of the other's worldviews. Freud says we come up with religion because we need that authority in our lives that we loose when we grow out of childhood. Lewis says, in terms of his own atheism at one point, says that quite often he was mad at God more than he didn't believe in God. This is how I often find myself: though I can rationalize that there is no God, I often hate God for not existing. Lewis sees this kind of feeling as an innate desire for God that we all have, which to him is a main piece of evidence for God's existence. I don't see that as evidence of God's existence, but I can see and feel the atheist's anger at God and the believer's need to create God.

In addition, I generally just learned a lot from the book; much of it is made up of the letters and works of the subjects and makes me want to seek out more to read from Freud and Lewis. So with that said, this is a book that I liked reading, though I didn't totally like some of the basis for the book in general. ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Mar 14, 2008 Erinina Marie rated it really liked it

Always a touchy question, there were probably never two more notably opinionated scholars to debate it. Overall, the author uses his research into their letters, lives and published writings to try to formulate a debate on the main topics of love, sex, death, pain and how to live life from a materialist vs. spiritual worldview.

Saving the author’s notably biased conclusions for your own perusal, I found the work enlightening not only on topics of spirituality and psychoanalysis, but as a biograph ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Apr 20, 2013 Amy rated it liked it

Shelves: my-bookstore-discoveries, summit-oxford, needs-an-editor, what-might-have-been, c-s-lewis

SO excited about this one. Taking all my willpower not to skip homework and just read it right now...
...
Bother, I wanted to like this book so much. The Question of God wasn't bad, but it lacked. The author is immensely repetitive and he states the same facts and quotes in almost every chapter. While this might work for a book designed to function more as a reference, it made a chronological reading boring.
The author also spoon-feeds the reader most of his conclusions. There is very little intel SO excited about this one. Taking all my willpower not to skip homework and just read it right now...
...
Bother, I wanted to like this book so much. The Question of God wasn't bad, but it lacked. The author is immensely repetitive and he states the same facts and quotes in almost every chapter. While this might work for a book designed to function more as a reference, it made a chronological reading boring.
The author also spoon-feeds the reader most of his conclusions. There is very little intellectual dialogue despite being a book contrasting new very different thinkers. What contrast there is comes from quotes from the two men and frequent, repetitive attempts on the author's part to remind the reader there is a 'great difference' between the two.
Even more jarring is the author's own voice laced throughout the book. At random chapters, he references his own experiences or the conversion of students he studied. With all respect to Dr. Nicholi, I didn't read this book for him and I could care less about what he thinks. Unfortunately, what he thinks is on every page. His bias becomes more evident with every chapter.
Of course, I agree with that bias and so I understood the conclusions he draws but I don't think he illuminates enough why you draw them. That is an entirely larger, more complex discussion. It is certainly one worth having but this book cannot do it justice and to focus so primarily on that is to create more confusion than clarity.
The Question of God was hardly a waste. I am glad I read it. It was intriguing to see the two men contrasted and I enjoyed reading both their writings. There certainly is a dialogue between them. The problem, however, is that this book doesn't dialogue so much as repeat quotes and biographical facts, hype up a contrast that doesn't need to be hyped, and finally draw conclusions about the world that (while I agree with), hardly emphasize the 'lack of bias' promised in the Prologue.
To conclude, I imagine this makes a wonderful class. This is a lecture series without the dialogue of students. You can lead a student to a conclusion over a semester. It is much harder to give that level of weight to a book finished over a few days (or in my case, one evening.) ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Sep 15, 2008 Paul Toth rated it it was ok

Like comparing apples and rocks. Freud's the apple from the nonexistent Tree of Knowledge, and C.S. Lewis the unfortunately all-too-prevalent Christian apologist whose arguments take rocks in the head to accept.

Consider this paraphrased example, which Lewis uses to explain the beginning of his career in helping people better deceive or come out of the wisdom of doubt into into the molesting hands of faith:

~~~ I felt joy. Therefore, a place for joy must exist. Therefore, someone must have made ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

May 11, 2007 Jonathan Ridenour rated it it was amazing

Recommends it for: Anyone

Shelves: psychology, spirituality

An incredible read. This book compares the lives of Lewis and Freud from a fairly psychoanlytic perspective, that is how their signficant relationships and upbringing shaped their theology, philiosophy, and psychology. Its clear from reading this book why one chose to believe in God and the other saw it as a form of neurosis. This book tackles the important topics of Love, Sex, Friendship, God, Pain, & Death. I just re-listened to the unabridged audio and its a great book. The author is clea ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 11, 2012 Gregory K. rated it it was ok

Shelves: reflection

For those who are not very familiar with the biographies and the ideas of Freud or CS Lewis I think this book would be a great starting point. This book paints a general picture of each man, of their lives and of what they believed. There are also many useful references to the books they have written and the books that influenced them at certain key points in their lives.

It is important to note that this is not really a 'debate' as the book cover proclaims. Really this book is more of a comparis ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 14, 2017 Nathan Schneider rated it it was amazing

Shelves: theology, apologetics

This was an enjoyable and enlightening read. Nicholi, who does write from a Christian perspective, offers a primer of both Freud's and Lewis' philosophy/ theology. Nicholi, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard and a frequent instructor on both men, shows the magnitude of both geniuses' impact in their respective fields. Both experienced similar childhoods and leaned into atheism, before Lewis' conversion to Christianity. Most compelling for me was the writings/beliefs of Freud and how he seeming ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 12, 2011 Clint rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2011

This was a really good book, despite the author. If it weren't for the author, I'd have given in 5 stars, because both Freud and Lewis are such interesting people, or at least wrote interesting things. But my god, this writer was so... argh!!!!

First: There should not be debates between atheists and Christians. Christianity is too specific. There should only be arguments between atheists and theists. The details of theist should be left for later.

Second: CS Lewis is of course well known for bein This was a really good book, despite the author. If it weren't for the author, I'd have given in 5 stars, because both Freud and Lewis are such interesting people, or at least wrote interesting things. But my god, this writer was so... argh!!!!

First: There should not be debates between atheists and Christians. Christianity is too specific. There should only be arguments between atheists and theists. The details of theist should be left for later.

Second: CS Lewis is of course well known for being a Christian polemical writer, but why Freud to represent atheism? He was an atheist, that's true, but, you know, Stephen King is an American, and writes a lot about America, but why would we choose him specifically to represent America in a debate about which country is right, America or Country X? One could go so far as to say Freud's atheism was a defining characteristic, but so is Stephen King's being American. It's just not the main things the two are known for.

Third: If Nicholi were trying to rally give an open, even, fair presentation of both men's points of views, he failed hysterically. REALLY!!!!! He is so in favor of Lewis it's astonishing that he'd even write the book and present it the way he did. He's constantly pointing out where Freud was "wrong" (mainly because Freud wasn't happy) and where Lewis was "right" (because Lewis was happy). Dude, that's like saying Justin Bieber's life philosophy is better than, I don't know, Sartre's, because he's a happier person. Dumb.

CS Lewis was not an atheist, ever, I don't believe it. His "atheism" is too romantic, too Byronic, too "if there WAS a god, then why do bad things happen, huh?" It's always fun for Christians to refer back to when they were atheists, because it makes atheism look like some youthful folly, and that people are atheists just won't "grow up." It's so condescending. The funniest part is when Lewis says something like Freud was a great thinking when it came to psychology, but when it came to religion, something Lewis knows a lot about, he was foolish. What's so funny about this is that fact that Lewis himself is one of the clumsiest logicians that publishers bother putting in print. His stepping from point A to B to C is so ridiculous and full of holes, I've thought this about him since I was a teenager and haven't changed my mind. It's like, "When I was an atheist I felt like there should be a better world, but how could I desire a better world if a better world didn't exist? Therefore, there is a better world after this one." I mean, seriously?

On the other hand, Lewis is a fantastic writer, and his power over metaphors and similes is practically unmatched anywhere else in English, or at least that I know of. But this only makes him extremely interesting and a pleasure to read, not correct in his half-assed metaphysics.

Freud, I don't know what to say about him. I liked him a lot more after reading this book that I did before, he's way more, I don't know, "human" than I'd thought he was. At the same time, however, he's kind of like Lewis in that he's an insanely gifted stylist but a lousy logician. The difference between the two, though, in that latter aspect, is that Freud didn't make his life's work center around the question of God, he stuck primarily to what he was good at, that is, psychology; Lewis, on the other hand, made the question of God almost the whole of his entire life, yet seemed to lack the most fundamental skills for arguing his points. He should have written more Narnia books. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 18, 2013 Joshua D. rated it it was amazing

Armand Nicholi, Jr is a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School. He is an expert in Freud studies and has done extensive research both on Freud's psychoanalytic method and his life (including regular meetings with Freud's students and even his children). For years Nicholi taught a class on Freud's worldview. But as the years went by he thought that for the class to be more effective, Freud needed a foil: someone who shared some common biography but ultimately embraced a different wo Armand Nicholi, Jr is a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School. He is an expert in Freud studies and has done extensive research both on Freud's psychoanalytic method and his life (including regular meetings with Freud's students and even his children). For years Nicholi taught a class on Freud's worldview. But as the years went by he thought that for the class to be more effective, Freud needed a foil: someone who shared some common biography but ultimately embraced a different worldview with different empirical results. He chose C.S. Lewis as Freud's foil, and Nicholi's seminar on Freud and Lewis has been one of Harvard's most popular classes. The class has spawned a PBS series, a play called Freud's Last Session, and the book The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life.

The book begins with a compare and contrast of Freud and Lewis' thoughts on God and morality. In perhaps the most interesting chapter, Nicholi describes the phenomenon of conversion. He describes Freud's initial fascination and ultimate rejection of religion and Lewis' atheism and ultimate conversion to Christianity. Nicholi also describes his own clinical research on the phenomenon of conversion.

The last part of the book attempts to tease out the effects of embracing one worldview or the other. He compares not only the beliefs of Freud and Lewis, but also the way it impacted their happiness, relationships, and ability to cope with suffering and death.

The Question of God is a unique book. It was been very well received and indeed has endorsements from a wide variety of sources: Ken Burns (documentary filmmaker), Peter Kreeft (philosopher), Timothy Johnson (Medical Editor, ABC News), and Ralph Johnson (CEO, Johnson & Johnson). Nicholi is a Christian, and while he has tremendous affection and respect for Sigmund Freud, largely agrees with Lewis. That might not be noteworthy in itself. But Nicholi goes a step further and argues that as a clinical psychiatrist, he believes the worldview espoused by Lewis leads to a greater degree of mental health than the one espoused by Freud. He attempts to show this from Freud and Lewis' lives, but also from his larger clinical research.

I recommend this book highly. A fun read: a mixture of biography, science, and philosophy. Well worth your time whether you consider yourself an atheist, believer, or somewhere in between. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 23, 2011 Lee Harmon rated it really liked it

A great book. I hated it.

This isn't really a "debate;" it's a biography of three men: the pre-conversion Lewis, and the post-conversion Lewis, and Freud. Nicholi does a great job of portraying both Lewis and Freud, perhaps two of the greatest minds of the last century.

Could any two men have needed religion more than Freud and Lewis? Both experienced suffering, as do we all. Freud was a noted atheist his entire life, yet the question of God continued to preoccupy him. Lewis was an atheist for the ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2012 Joe rated it it was amazing

Shelves: philosophy, religion, english, psychology, judaism, advice

As wonderful a book as I've read in some time. The author, Nicholi, walks a narrow, but fair path between both Lewis's and Freud's divergent philosophies on God and spirituality. As someone who has never read anything written by either Freud, OR Lewis, I found this book to be an amazing insight into their psyches as they grew and developed into adults, and grew to either embrace or grow disgusted with the world.

Where Lewis sees a positivity and a goodness to await, Freud sees only the negative, ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 09, 2011 Autumn rated it did not like it

I couldn’t even finish this book because the author’s extremely apparent bias was getting in the way of everything (despite his claim in the introduction that this is an “objective and dispassionate” venture). The premise is intriguing but I quickly realized that the way it’s set up here is all wrong. First of all, Freud discusses religion where Lewis discusses Christianity. Nicholi’s proposal that these are equivalent topics says all you need to know about where he’s coming from. Secondly, Lewi ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 21, 2012 Dale rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Fantastic. A most interesting book.

The Question of God is a fascinating book. I heard it is an audiobook. I listen to audiobooks as an interesting diversion during my commute to work and I found this book to fit the bill perfectly. It is narrated wonderfully by Robert Whitfield.

Fans of Freud have complained about the book because they think that Lewis comes out of these debates much stronger than Freud. I agree. But, I do not think Freud was disparaged or misrepresented in these "debates."

La ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Feb 21, 2008 Kevin rated it really liked it

A fantastic, if somewhat academic, look into a couple of the most influential minds of the 20th Century. This book is essentially a post-humus debate about religion, the existence of God, and the relevance of God in our lives (with respect to morals, death, sex, etc.). Critical reading for any individual who is a fan of EITHER C.S. Lewis or Sigmund Freud. I would also recommend it to anyone who has struggled with this debate themselves (i.e. whether or not there is a God, and what it means in my ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 26, 2007 Sørina rated it liked it

Recommends it for: um... nobody?

Well, I guess I wouldn't say to avoid it. But it's not actually a book: it's a very clever string of quotes from the writings of Freud and Lewis. And the prose is not very smooth prose or well organized, which is annoying. Basically it's a substitute for thinking about the ideas of Lewis and Freud on your own; but since most of us don't have good enough memories or enough time to read all (or even most) of the works of those two thinkers and compare their works, it's very handy. Especially as I' ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 09, 2009 Laura rated it really liked it

Thank you, Emily, for finding this gem! Appreciate even more, your excellent review of it. I found it interesting to read about the personal lives of both of these giants of the 20th century. I agree with you that Lewis obviously came through his experiences with life and with God in way better shape than Freud did. This read was extremely enlightening and I am grateful to be reminded about a writer who is much loved due to his Christian beliefs and who I need to revisit soon. This may well be o ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 13, 2008 Madeline Ellis rated it it was amazing

Shelves: spirtual

Wow great book. i love C.S.Lewis..and this book is a wonderful comparison of his life and beliefs and teachings etc. to that of sigmund freud. it is a very thorough deep look into the lives of these two men who have had such a huge impact on the way we see things today. very fascinating. i loved it obviously but i might be weird...

flag 1 like · Like · see review

May 28, 2009 Jayce O'Neal rated it it was amazing

A delight conversation between two of the leading minds of the past 100 years. A debate between an atheist and atheist turned Christian thinker. Any person who has ever questioned about life, God, or love sould read this book.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 19, 2009 Sara rated it it was amazing

Very interesting book that compares the views of C.S. Lewis and Sigmun Freud. It seems to me that Lewis thought about things on a more complex level than Freud...he dug deeper into issues and followed through more thoroughly in his thinking.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 09, 2008 Madeline rated it really liked it

really enjoyed it. kept me interested the whole time. lots of good quotes. it wasn't supposed to be biased. but maybe i'm just biased b/c i think Lewis came across much more positive. and freud more of a weirdo than i even thought he was.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 03, 2009 Anna rated it it was amazing

Freud and Lewis debate God, love, and sex. Do you really need more information than that?

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Nov 04, 2014 Ratforce added it · review of another edition

Shelves: religion, lewis-cs, philosophy

Armand Nicholi pairs the writings of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud to provide a well-rounded debate into many of philosophy's biggest questions. The result is a fascinating read.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2012 Josh rated it liked it

Shelves: lewis, culture

Not bad. Pretty faithful to Lewis. And Freud i believe. The comparison was interesting. Time would be better spent just reading some of Lewis' works. Read in 2009.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 29, 2011 Vincent rated it did not like it

Shelves: religious-studies, philosophy, dreck, christianity

Indulge me, if you will, in this little scenario. You are told that you will bear witness to a debate between two great minds over life’s most import questions and the moderator promises to remain completely objective. Debater #1 is then immediately placed in a soundproof cage and is allowed to simply ramble about anything he desires. He is also unaware that he is in a debate. Debater #2 responds to Debater #1 whenever he wishes, sometimes not even addressing the same subject, yet this is a smal Indulge me, if you will, in this little scenario. You are told that you will bear witness to a debate between two great minds over life’s most import questions and the moderator promises to remain completely objective. Debater #1 is then immediately placed in a soundproof cage and is allowed to simply ramble about anything he desires. He is also unaware that he is in a debate. Debater #2 responds to Debater #1 whenever he wishes, sometimes not even addressing the same subject, yet this is a small matter as Debater #1 is not allowed to respond. Meanwhile, the moderator is sporting an obvious hard-on for Debater #2, massaging his shoulders and backing him up whenever possible. How long will it take you to realize you are being shammed?

The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, purports to be an objective examination of the topics at hand using the writings of Freud and Lewis to counterpoint each other, Freud representing the “materialist worldview” and Lewis the “spiritual worldview” – in other words, atheism and theism. The author, Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr., justifies this by the fact that Lewis was influenced by Freud early in his life but eventually converted to Christianity and wrote responses to Freud’s ideas, and if these writings are examined beside each other something like a debate emerges. In this Nicholi is overstretching what constitutes as a debate. Indeed, there is no record of the two men ever meeting or corresponding and they belonged to two distinct and separate generations.

Right from the start his premise is flawed. He claims that “Freud still serves as a primary spokesman for materialism” (4). Does he? What materialist turns to Freud for guidance these days? Who turns to Freud for anything these days, aside for jokes about the Oedipal Complex and Penis Envy? Nicholi does not back up his statement and immediately sets up a straw man. This is even after he has admitted that the “criticism and controversy surrounding him” have grown since his death (2).

Nevertheless, Nicholi wishes to tie the validity of his subjects’ arguments to the way in which they lived their lives, though he also admits that “we do well to keep in mind that human beings do not always live what they profess, nor profess what they live” (5). Nicholi wants it both ways and will take either when it is convenient to his perspective. Regardless, this notion is false and rests the measurement of truth not on fact or logic but on the happiness and conduct of a particular individual. By this reasoning, the American values laid forth in the Declaration of Independence are null and void because its author was a hypocritical slave holder. Please leave your equal rights at the door as you leave, thank you very much. In essence, what Nicholi has laid the groundwork for and will in short order begin to execute is a hatchet job on Freud, who is about as difficult to hatchet as butter, and will vicariously claim victory over the materialist viewpoint due to Freud’s personal faults.

His establishment of Lewis is also manipulative. He sets Lewis up to represent the “spiritual worldview” to contrast the “materialist” one, claiming that they are mutually exclusive because “one of them begins with the premise that God does not exist, the other with the premise that He does” (8). But this is far too restrictive a use of the broad term “spiritual,” which in many definitions is not at all incompatible with the materialist worldview, as many forms of spirituality do not suppose a belief in immaterial realities. By categorizing Lewis as he does, Nicholi is employing a semantic sleight of hand, attempting to mask Lewis’s true focus, or perhaps trying to gain him more sympathy with a generally positive word. However, as one reads the so-called debate it becomes glaringly obvious that Freud and Lewis are not speaking of the same things – Freud is speaking of science (as it was understood in his time) and religion in general while Lewis is speaking specifically of Christianity. Unlike Freud, Lewis is still viewed as a standard – of Christian apologetics. Either way, Freud and Lewis are too narrow in their arguments and discipline to properly represent either proposed worldview.

Nicholi states that “we will look at both views as objectively and dispassionately as possible and let the arguments speak for themselves” (6). Yet the author continually interjects himself into the conversation, usually to admonish Freud on his contradictions (no matter how minor and insignificant) and to praise Lewis. Freud is given the majority of individual analysis while Lewis shows up only when it is convenient for the author to counter Freud, like a strong man at his side. Lewis is even used to basically psychoanalyze Freud, but Freud is not used to psychoanalyze Lewis. It is clearly a lopsided argument and further injures the book by giving it a disjointed quality.

At one point Nicholi remarks: “As with much of Freud’s teachings, the great psychiatrist offers a partial truth that supports his philosophy but omits crucial aspects that question his conclusions” (50). Yet the same can equally be said of Lewis (and Nicholi, for that matter), who uses false assumptions, circular logic and empty metaphors to make his arguments, which he then wraps up in admittedly seductive language (the man new how to weave a vibrant fabric of words). Freud, on the other hand, was no seducer. Yet on Lewis the author once again is conveniently silent. In the final paragraph of Chapter 2 Nicholi even casually writes: “In sum, Freud and Lewis’s arguments can be subjected to tests of evidence and plausibility” (56). Wait, what? Freud and Lewis’s arguments, you say? And yet the author has just spent several pages tearing through Freud and not Lewis. The materialist has been subjected to the stated tests and Lewis has not. In fact, Lewis is largely given a free ride throughout the book.

Nicholi employs a modern arsenal of psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and even (generally erroneous) Gallup polls to contradict Freud, but not Lewis. Even in instances when Lewis is patently wrong Nicholi remains silent, or worse, lays credence, such as when the author accepts Lewis’s judgment of the gospels when he refers to them as the “eyewitness accounts of the New Testament” (89), and yet biblical scholarship has shown them to be anything but. This fact would topple Lewis’s argument and it is therefore conspicuous that Nicholi does not intercede. When Nicholi does decide to lend his psychiatric expertise to question Lewis, it is usually frivolous, such as when he questions to what degree Lewis’s conversion was intellectual or emotional. Nicholi, unsurprisingly, suspects he felt it more profoundly than he admits (92). Gee, thanks for the valuable insight, doctor.

Nicholi enters the scene at other odd times. For instance, when he discusses a psychological study he conducted about the positive effects of religious experience on believers’ personal lives. He says that the paper was done “several years ago” (80) although at the time of the book’s publication it was close to thirty years. He briefly presents the findings of this study as a means to counter Freud’s negative assessment of belief and yet says nothing about it possibly laying support for Freud’s grounding of religious belief in Darwinist terms, as a once useful residual evolutionary trait.

In Nicholi’s analysis of Freud and Lewis’s atheism, we are told to view their rejection of God in terms of their unresolved issues with their fathers. According to the author, Freud continually lived with an unfulfilled longing, his thoughts towards his father leading to his continual denial of God’s existence. Lewis, on the other hand, is depicted as overcoming that obstacle, as removing his blinders and finding God’s grace. In the end, the author informs readers that we should follow Lewis’s example, that “we owe it to ourselves to look at the evidence [for God], perhaps beginning with the Old and New Testaments” (244).

I have no issue with Christian apologetics that are truthful from the start about what they are and what their intentions will be. It is a simple courtesy owed to the reader. What I thought might be an interesting thought experiment turned out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The thin disguise of objectivity that Nicholi has veiled around this book quickly erodes with each turn of the page. Critical readers who are appropriately resentful to such deception will leave this book feeling bitter and betrayed. You have been warned. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 18, 2017 Anthony Cleveland rated it it was amazing

What an imaginative and creative approach to an interesting proposition ... imagine the dinner conversation between the great writer of Christian apologetics, C.S. Lewis, and the brilliant atheistic founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Where would they start? What would they talk about? Would they agree upon anything? A great book written in an easy to follow style. Could not put the thing down and have read it twice since the purchase. Holds a special place on my desk at work. I have recom ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 19, 2017 Phillip rated it really liked it

Shelves: psychology, religion, c-s-lewis, audio-book

I like it. It isn't as Lewis-centric as these things usually are. That is refreshing. But it still provides the material.

flag Like · see review

Apr 11, 2016 Nathan Albright rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: challenge

Admittedly, I probably read more about C.S. Lewis than most people probably do [1], but although there is something about the book that intrigued me when I first read about this book, there is something about the book that initially concerned me as well. After all, C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud never debated each other, and likely never met each other, although there is a slight chance that they met during the end of Freud's life when he was an exile in England just before World War II, and there ...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 05, 2017 Heather Denigan rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy, apologetics, culture

Good introduction to the life and thought of Freud and Lewis. I came to this book very familiar with Lewis but quite unfamiliar with Freud.
Some reviews have touched on the author's bias. Armandi gives Freud a pretty fair shake and he's sympathetic to Freud's predicament, but it's obvious that he doesn't share Freud's worldview. But that said, Armandi confesses in the introduction that Freud had the disadvantage of dying first and so never had the opportunity to respond to Lewis' philosophy. It's ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 25, 2016 Jc rated it did not like it

This is the basis for a similarly titled PBS show, where Nicholi moderated a panel of citizens with different views of god and religion. The show & book both purport to use the lives and writings of Lewis and Freud to delve into deep questions of life, spirituality, and theology. Well, sort-a. Watching only a few segments of the program made me suspicious that Nicholi was NOT as neutral as he pretends. For one thing, I would argue that Lewis is NOT a good example (let alone the greatest of t ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Philosophy

108 users

Nonfiction

83 users

Religion

73 users

Psychology

52 users

Religion > Theology

48 users

Religion > Christianity

29 users

See top shelves…

Books by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

More…

Share This Book

+ Share on your website

Trivia About The Question of G...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from The Question of G...

“Why did Freud write a book about which he had such doubts? We can only conjecture. Peter Gay wrote that “it is highly plausible that some of the impulses guiding Freud’s arguments in Totem and Taboo emerged from his hidden life; in some respects the book represents a round in his never finished wrestling bout with Jacob Freud.” Gay also mentions that Freud realized he was “publishing scientific fantasies.” — 0 likes

“A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right . . . Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.” — 0 likes

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life
avg rating	preview: The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life Goodreads rating: 3.96 (3278 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97753.The_Question_of_God?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348754344l/97753.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/97753.The_Question_of_God?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.[/url]

See a Problem?

Preview — The Question of God by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Books by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

Share This Book

Share on your website

Trivia About The Question of G...

Quotes from The Question of G...

See a Problem?

Preview — The Question of God by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers Also Enjoyed

Genres

Books by Armand M. Nicholi Jr.

Share This Book

Share on your website

Trivia About The Question of G...

Quotes from The Question of G...

new topic
Discuss This Book