Rating: 
Summary: The Question of God
Review: **** Not everyone can attend Harvard, but everyone can read a book that details one of the more popular courses offered there. Though a generation separated C S Lewis and Sigmund Freud, they played highly influential roles, albeit polar opposites, on the thought life of the last century. Both began as atheists, and both suffered greatly in their times, but Lewis was found by God, Freud rejected God. Thus, their views on life were the antithesis of each other, and in the contrast lies a wealth of debate for the inquiring mind. Though it begins in a rather dry fashion, once past the biographical details, it turns fascinating, especially when the author turns to questions of pain and evil. ****
Rating: 
Summary: Christian propaganda disguised as scholarship
Review: A very dear friend who disapproves of my atheism sent me THE QUESTON OF GOD -- from Amazon, in fact -- in the hope that it would convert me to Christianity. Alas, it has had the reverse effect. The book pretends to be a dispassionate examination of the lives and religious (or irreligious) views of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis, the one a lifelong atheist, the other someone who flirted with atheism during his youth but returned to Christianity. In reality, however, the book is thinly disguised Christian propaganda, so relentlessly manipulative and annoyingly tendentious, so eager to win us over to Jesus, chapter after chapter, that its very one-sidedness had me rooting for Freud -- and respecting him all the more for his courage, his humility, and his often self-lacerating honesty -- each time the author attempted to score points off him. Armand Nicholi is a professor of psychology who writes more like a minister or priest. (He's convinced, for example, that the root of all failed relationships is our failed relationship with God,) He may be genuinely well-intentioned -- most missionaries are, I suppose -- but it's hard to forgive him for setting himself up as an even-handed explicator of these two men's philosophies, making a show of carefully weighing one against the other on a variety of topics, when in fact -- like those notorious Soviet-bloc Olympic judges back in the days of the Cold War -- he is unfailingly biased toward his favorite (Lewis) and always has his finger on the scale.The very terms Nicholi uses in presenting Freud's and Lewis's views are loaded ones: Freud -- whom Nicholi treats with condescension masquerading as sympathy -- is always admitting, acknowledging, confessing, conceding, realizing himself guilty of some inconsistency or self-contradiction, whereas Lewis -- who, as the younger man, always gets the last word -- is forever pointing out, noting, observing, explaining, and reminding us. (Lewis, whatever one thinks of his beliefs, wrote like an angel; I've enjoyed a number of his books, even if I find his theology preposterous. But here, quoted piecemeal by Nicholi and at other times paraphrased, Lewis comes off as disagreeably smug; and -- though it may sound paradoxical -- when Lewis writes about how he finally gave up the fight and surrendered himself to the Lord, his delight in his own self-abasement sounds positively creepy.) Nicholi's modes of argument are no less annoying. In order to buttress his case, at least four times in the course of the book he cites a Gallup poll which found that an enormous majority of Americans are religious. (The last time I looked, a majority also believed in ghosts and ESP, and close to half believe in UFOs -- but so what?) Nicholi also resorts to the what's-in-it-for-me? argument: We're informed that Lewis's career blossomed when he threw off his foolish atheism and returned to God; he was happier than the frequently depressed Freud; he was less consumed with ambition; he had (this is a real stretch, from what I know of Lewis) a more satisfying sex life; with his rosy anticipation of an eternal afterlife, he didn't suffer, as Freud did, from a fear of death. (To which one might respond: Duh! If religion isn't about assuaging our fear of death, what good is it?) All these arguments speak to the practical benefits of being a believer: They're akin to the benefits of Prozac or of meditation or of joining a health club, but they don't tell us anything about the truth or foolishness of the belief itself -- the "Question of God" of the title. Because Lewis was genial and Freud could be quarrelsome (though Nicholi delights in taking Freud's lifelong modesty and self-criticism, as expressed in letters and memoirs, as the whole truth), does it follow that what Lewis believed was true and that Freud was mistaken? Always eager to point out flaws in Freud's personality, Nicholi seems to hold him vaguely responsible for the failure of Freud's friendship with his onetime disciple Jung, but he never mentions Jung's jealousy or his accommodation, when it suited him, to the Nazis. Finally -- and perhaps I shouldn't hold this against him, but I find this sort of "holy" style a turnoff -- Nicholi is so devout that he'll capitalize not just He and His in relation to God and Jesus, but other words as well, e.g. "the Object of his faith." It's clear, from such choices, that Nicholi is a pious man, even if, like his hero, C. S. Lewis, his piety sometimes looks a lot like smugness.
Rating: 
Summary: Freud is appropriate
Review: Although some reviewers have suggested other materialists and atheists for this comparative study, Freud is still appropriate for the subject of A comparative study for at least three reasons: 1) the author is a practicing psychiatrist affiliated with Harvard Medical School and Harvard College and is drawing upon his area of expertise for this study; 2) Lewis himself was a Freudian atheist into his 30s; 3) although Freud's treatment of art, anthropology, and religion were inadequate and even flawed, as the British psychiatrist Anthony Storr explains in his study of Freud, nevertheless Freud's thinking in all these areas, especially religion, have greatly influenced modern society whether most people realize the source or not. As far as David Hume goes, Lewis already answered him in his book "Miracles."
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Reading
Review: Armand Nicholi teaches a college course comparing the philosphies of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud--their approaches to God, love, etc., all as revealed in the title of this wonderfully interesting book. Professor Nicholi has taken the course and turned it into this very readable book. Although they probably never met, Nicholi has constructed a dialogue or debate--Lewis v. Freud. I will tell you straight out, Lewis clearly has the upper hand in this book, but that is probably more of a function of his surviving Freud and respoding to his writings, and Nicholi's own biases. That does not detract at all from this fascinating book. I think anyone interested in the question of God and the importance of religion in contemporary society will find this book interesting and compelling reading. Much of the background material may be repetitive to those who know much of the lives of these two men, but for anyone even mildly curious about these two men, this book should be a great place to start.
Rating:
Summary: Relativity
Review: at the first, i found this book in philosophy category given by amazon. i thought that "this is the book i've been looking for".
i my self have to admit that i am one of those who freud called believer, but i don't see that there's any point to put lewis as the hero and freud become the bad boy.
i think the writer of this book is a very religious man that he can't see freud as one who give critical thoughts so people can realize "why" he or she comes to the church every week in contrary way. it makes people think why, not always with the answer must
before i know freud from reading some of his books and from "question of god" i was confuse why those people think that going to the church is already "an account" to the heaven. but after i read freud's books, i found that it is not always about religiion or being believer but it's all about doing the "right" things. it makes me think critically why me and my family and even my girl friend is in that place we call church and vihara, to learn, not to be a "good man" suddenly after you step in the church or vihara.
honestly, reading this book sometimes makes me boring, but i admire how the writer shows what he thinks, a book worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, fascinating, lucid
Review: Dr. Nicholi does a brilliant job of comparing and contrasting the writings and ideas of two very important modern thinkers.The author's lucid and lively writing successfully brings out the practical implications of the different views of Lewis and Freud on love, sex, death, and God. Dr. Nicholi has taken complex subject matter and made it very accessible and interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: Dr. Nicoli does a fine job here of comparing and contrasting these two wise men of the modern age. While one reveiwer felt that Nicoli was really using this as propaganda and sneaking in Christianity, I think we have to take Nicoli's words faithfully that he is not trying to steer us one way or the other. Certainly a man's worldview does affect all that he says and does, but Nicoli as much as possible trys to simply compare the two men and their respective systems. I did not notice anything in particular that seemed to indicate that Nicoli was anymore a Christian than a materialist. What happens as one reads and takes in these two great men and their systems is that Lewis' point of view simply comes out as more hopeful and joy filled. Perhaps that is because...it is true.
Rating:
Summary: The Big Questions.
Review: Freud and Lewis never engaged in what we typically think of as a debate. There is only a slight chance that they ever met. Yet they are obvious voices for an editor/ philosopher to use as antithetical worldviews. In terms of influence, as an advocate of atheism and materialism, Freud stands with perhaps only Karl Marx among modern thinkers. In contrast, Lewis is certainly one of the most influential thinkers of theism in the past century. Both are generally respected, perhaps admired, even among their respective ideological contraries; both wrote of their views extensively.
Harvard professor of psychiatry Armand Nicholi has for several years taught a philosophy class for psychiatry students centered on the opposing arguments of these two 'intellectual giants'. Obviously something of an expert on both Freud's thought and personal life, Nicholi embraces many of the famous psychoanalyst's theories, for example his theory of transference. However, it becomes apparent that he looks less favorably on other of Freud's ideas, and in this he is hardly unique. Few psychiatrists would completely endorse Freud's ideas, and few would completely reject them.
The author is equally interested in the thought and personal life (thought will likely have some bearing on personal life, and vice versa) of C.S. Lewis. Both Lewis and Freud were given to wrestling with the "big questions" -- the [supra]existence of God and the meaning of life. As a young Oxford don, Lewis adopted Freud's materialistic worldview, maybe more strongly than even Freud did. Later, in his early thirties, Lewis rejected Freud's answers to the big questions and went on to famously argue against them.
Some reviewers state that Nicholi expresses a bias for Lewis' view. Indeed Lewis' arguments more specifically rebut Freud's than vice versa. This fact alone does not reflect Nicholi's bias, Lewis was the younger man and had studied Freud. Advantage Lewis. But, in the second section of the book, it is apparent that Nicholi's views are much nearer those of Lewis. If you want to call this 'bias', I'll not argue with you. However, Freud and Lewis take positions that are mutually exclusive, and ultimately, they can't both be 'right'. A moral Absolute either [supra]exists or it does not; the world either traces to an intelligent First Cause or lurches meaninglessly from a hazy infinite regress of 'blind' causes; all love is merely a variation of sexuality or Love is something more fundamentally profound. Either Freud is on the right track or Lewis is. A thinking person must agree more with one than the other. The author does, likely anyone treating these arguments must, readers will. As for myself, I tend to agree with Lewis, although I don't personally subscribe to certain of his arguments. In some important instances, Freud fails to follow his own arguments to there logical conclusion, and Lewis understands Freud's arguments better and Freud does. Psychologically (and logically) speaking, Lewis accounts for Freud's view better than Freud accounts for Lewis'. I don't know that one must be biased to discern this, the arguments are accurately stated. There is no straw man in Nicholi's book.
It must be noted that the author does not treat Freud unsympathetically, in fact the reader, whatever his/her bias (or lack thereof, if that is possible), may identify strongly with both men. As to their differences of temperament, of which Nicholi takes note (Freud -- isolated and depressed, Lewis -- companionable and joyful), one might do well to examine the role of temperament in one's choice of worldview as described notably by William James. [While there may be many exceptions to the rule] where temperament leads, thought often follows, something I suspect was a large factor in Freud's views in particular.
Regardless of any weaknesses, this is an important book because it speaks to the most important questions of human existence. However, even to say this is important becomes a point in favor of Lewis' view. The question now becomes, is there an actual reason you're interested in this book, or not? Lewis would clearly argue yes, what could Freud's answer be?
Rating:
Summary: Not a Good Balance
Review: I am a devout Christian disciple and a huge fan of C.S. Lewis; in fact, I might call him my idol. However, I have to say that the composition of this book, while entertaining, immediately seems unbalanced. If this book were taken as truth, one would HAVE to be persuaded in Lewis's direction. The problem I had with this book though is rooted in the obviously fragmented image of Freud and the real-life Freud. Now understand that I have had no prior knowledge of Freud before this book. How could the painted picture of Freud by Nicholi be representative of the man who changed modern psychology? If the man Nicholi portrays is to be believed, you would immediately have to discredit everything Freud stood for. History, Science, and Medicine have all credited Freud with novel breakthroughs and while knowing nothing about him I would have to say that based on these sources, his accomplishments must have been valid. That isn't to say that he didn't have his flaws. Unfortunately, this book points out ALL of Freud's flaws while making Lewis to be the innocent saint. While Lewis is my idol and I look up to him in almost every aspect of life, I must remind myself that he was human too and that his writings did not portray his faults. Anybody with a fleck of intelligence will see that this book is not balanced. As one of the reviewers noted, Freud did not concentrate his focus on religion which leaves Lewis with more ammunition. But for anyone who has read Lewis, you will already know that he even speaks about this with regards to himself and Freud. To paraphrase, Lewis says "I do not claim any professionalism as far as the psychoanalyst and leave their work to them; I am only a layman in the matter. So too should those such as Freud stick to what they do best: psychoanalyze, and leave the theology to those who specialize in it." Which apparently is what Freud did anyway.m
Rating:
Summary: An entertaining and educational read
Review: I am not a scholar, a student of either psychology or religion, just an avid reader. This book is a well-written and an enjoyable reading experience. I knew a little about Lewis and less about Freud before I started, but found both men's lives and ideas of interest. And, as sometimes happens, you'll pick up a book to read and something in it will provide a little spark of insight into something that's troubling you. That was the case for me with this book, so I'll always be glad of having read it.
|
