Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable Read
Review: I enjoyed the format of this book. Nicholi sets up a number of big issues (God, ethics: objective or subjective?, sex, love, etc...) and lays out the views of Freud and Lewis, respectively. Freud is the ultimate materialist, reductionist, etc.. and Lewis is a theist and so it is an interesting contrast. The author sides with Lewis and this is evident at certain points in the text. So, it's not completely balanced but I felt like Freud got a fair hearing (and I am an atheist). I think that there is truth in both positions and that there can be a naturalistic, non theistic, synthesis. Lewis might actually win this debate, as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't make me a theist since I think that the non theis position can get a better representation than by Freud. Anyways, the stuff on sex, love, the existence of God, and the background information on each of these intersting figures life was a fun read. It's not especially deep or comprehensive but it's a good starting point for some big issues.
Greg Feirman (...)
Rating:
Summary: Bias in the Eye of the Beholder
Review: I find it interesting to see such a wide assortment of takes on Nicholi's alleged bias in this book. I am of the non-believer persuasion and I thought Nicholi did a great job of keeping things very balanced, but an atheist colleague of mine, to whom I recommended the book, said he came away from the book feeling that Freud had the stronger voice in the book. So I guess what one must keep in mind is that on such a powerful topic, it is hard for any of us, whether writer or reader, to keep a straight face. Our experiences and our own opinions necessarily taint how we view the author's presentation.
Rating:
Summary: Good book but not great.
Review: I found myself wanting Mr. Nicholi to go deeper. C. S. Lewis is one of my favorite authors and I found that the author barely skims the surface of Lewis's ideas. I did not have an indepth knowledge of Freud's ideas, just the basics from college phsychology, so I can only assume the same would be true for his point of view.
I am a Christian, so I was reading the book from a different perspective. I tried to step outside of myself and read the book from a skeptic's point of view (inside all of us lives a skeptic). Like some of the other reviewers, I would have an issue with the author's choice of Freud, since his bankrupt life would better serve to support the Christian worldview. On the other hand, the most compelling aspect of the book is the case study of two men's lives and how their worldview affected the way they lived their lives and what they were like in the end.
The book is a good overview of the main topics: universal law, God, Love, pain, death, etc. but it doesn't near go deep enough. I enjoyed the PBS program of the book because they had a panel of people discussing these issues with Mr. Nicholi and you heard the real-time debate from each side.
Not a great apologetic work, not totally objective either but a wonderful case study of how our worldview affects our life. Also a good introduction into two great men.
Rating:
Summary: I liked this book, although it wasn't all I had hoped!
Review: I found this book extremely engaging to read, especially in light of having recently read Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents" (which the author quotes heavily from in T.Q.O.G.), and from my curiosity of both men's lives they lead behind their works. I had no idea C.S. Lewis was a devout atheist for the first 31 years of his life, and learning about his life before and after his conversion is really quite remarkable.
I think the author attempts to be too defining with this book though. Surely he knows that the question of God just cannot be answered, at least within a 250-page book. But he does make the claim that "Freud's and Lewis's arguments can be subjected to tests of evidence and plausibility". Plausibility, sure -- but evidence, I am not so sure of. We're talking religion and psychology here, not archeology or genetics. Through the comparison of these two great men, I think I derived the most benefit from this book through realizing how completely different their modes of thought were. And how their modes of thinking brought them to their own world-views. Their world-views, and their specific conclusion about the existence of God are mutually exclusive, but logic rings a bell here, reminding me that this doesn't imply that their modes of thought are mutually exclusive. If a chemist and a Catholic nun arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions about God, I don't think that implies a difference of validity in their beliefs and life-work. I think it testifies to the infinitely complex and inscrutable world we live in.
Rating: 
Summary: Biased towards Lewis, but still worth reading
Review: I really enjoyed this book, especially since I had read both authors extensively. Even if you have read many of the books quoted, the biographical information provides some interesting insights. I had always had expectations about how they had lived their live sin light or their writings and I was very surprised. The other things that is valuable is the synoptical nature of it, which brings the authors to terms in a way that lets you see clearly how their views compare and contrast.
Other reviewers have noted the bias this book seems to have towards Lewis, but I think the problem is caused by the fact Nicholi is a psychiatrist and notes Lewis' happiness compared to Freud's angst. The fact is that if you look at their writings anyone would say Lewis was happier and Nicholi does rub this in. He also seems to like Lewis' sentiments more, but most people would agree with him. Freud's writing, despite its truths, is seldom read for fun and is usually encountered in an academic setting, whereas Lewis' writing is almost always read by choice and he was concerned with pleasing people. Some of the bias people detect lies in the fact that Lewis simply sounds better than Freud, but I would warn atheists and devotees of Freud that Nicholi does seem ever biased towards Lewis. This mostly seems to spring from looking at the effects of their worldviews on their psyches, with Lewis' Christianity coming out with better results. However, it would be interesting if this book were written about an unhappy Christian like Kierkegaard and a happy atheist like Carl Sagan etc. I would also note that the book is very different from the PBS TV special, which is a biography of the two men alongside a roundtable discussion between experts of various views, it's quite different from the book.
The only things I personally didn't like about this book is that it can be repetitive when some of the chapter subjects intersect, but otherwise I'm glad I read it. It clarified a lot of incorrect things (mostly negative) I thought about Freud and give me more insight into how a worldview can affect one's life. If you're looking for a rational defense/refutation of religion, this is not it, but if you want to look at religion from a psychological view or if you are merely interested in the two authors, you'll probably enjoy this.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding contrast!
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed exploring both the thoughts of Freud and Lewis through Dr. Nicholi's summary in this book. People who are not familiar with the writings of Lewis or Freud (or both) will find this a very readable primer on their basic worldviews. I confess that I am puzzled at those who accuse Nicholi of "stacking the deck" in favor of Lewis, or merely feigning objectivity while actually casting Freud in a poor light. The thinly veiled assertion seems to be that Freud was actually very different than he is made out to be in this book, and that Nicholi either consciously or unconsciously skews Freud's real positions and ideas. I found that far from the truth. First, Nicholi readily acknowledges that no one is truly objective and dispassionate, particularly on such fundamental questions as the meaning of life and existence of God. But I believe he does an excellent job of not injecting his own bias into the equation. Second, Nicholi takes pains to point out many of the (rather substantial) contributions Freud has made to modern thought, particularly in his field of psychoanalysis. Finally, Nicholi's text is historical. Where people may have encountered frustration (particularly supporters or Freud's wordlview) is when Nicholi attempts to look at the actual EFFECT of each man's worldview on his life; a perfectly appropriate tactic given the goal of the book. Nicholi cites nothing but historically verifiable facts about these two men. Whether one believes in God or not, the rather dramatic nature of Lewis' conversion is undeniable -- one may debate the cause(s) of his change, but not the existence of the change. The same holds true for the despair and lonliness that Freud freely acknowledges experiencing in heavy doses. If Nicholi omitted important information about Freud, then critique him as a poor historian and offer factual backup. But do not simply react against the picture he paints merely because of how it looks. I, for one, am categorically not an adherent to Freud's worldview. But I actually came away from Nicholi's book feeling like I now understand and appreciate Freud far more than I did before.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding. A must read for those interested in this topic
Review: I'm a physician but knew very little of Freud. My daughter introduced me to CS Lewis and I read his "Mere Christianity." I did not see the PBS special based on this book. I do not know / did not know the background of the author except that he taught at Harvard -- which I consider a very secular institution. The subject fascinated me; I didn't even know the PBS special was based on a book; I walked through Barnes and Noble and it was on the "In the News" shelf alongside the new book on Paris Hilton. I snapped it up and I'm glad I did. If Nicholi's portrayal of Freud is accurate, I find Freud -- though he may be the father of psychoanalysis -- a depressing and very strange fellow. Very strange indeed. If Nicholi's portrayal of CS Lewis is accurate, I find him much more insightful, very optimistic, and I would have enjoyed sipping Scotch with him. This book encourages me to read other books written by CS Lewis, and perhaps encourages me to read the "official" biography of Freud, to see whether Nicholi is that far off the mark. If you are over the age of 35 and are an eclectic reader, with little knowledge of Freud or CS Lewis, this is a great primer. You should buy the soft cover and carry it on your next flight. It's a keeper and well worth the price.
Rating: 
Summary: Mild Christian Propaganda
Review: Just finished this book. I almost tore it up twice. All the little snide, smug comments really started to get at me. I am no athiest, and I am certainly no Christain but this Doc can't seem to put 2 and 2 together. If 80% or whatever it is believe in God, and at least 30% will become depressed in their lifetime, then Freud's position is not inferior to Lewis. The Author definetly has a disposition towards Lewis, my suggestion is to skip this brainwash scrub and go right to the source and read either Freud or Lewis, whichever one feats your fancy.
Rating: 
Summary: The photo on the cover says it all!
Review: Just picking this book up provides a visually metaphorical preview of its contents: Freud glowers with furrowed brow, presumably the result of his nihilistic worldview, while Lewis gazes with gently hopeful eyes, the apparent embodiment of faith. Everything between the covers of the book is similarly skewed. First, Nicholi's presentation style is disingenuous. In a supposedly scholarly book such as this, it would be helpful and expected for the author to situate him or herself within the dialogue. Nicholi does no such thing, however, and attempts to maintain the illusion that he simply presents the "worldviews" of Lewis and Freud with the disinterested objectivity of a true academician. Next, Nicholi offers little rationale for choosing Lewis and Freud as the representatives of their respective ways of being in the world. It becomes uncomfortably obvious that he finds it easy to dismiss Freud, though, because those earliest and grossly mistranslated psychoanalytic writings lend themselves so readily to ridicule. The fact that Lewis and Freud lived in very different cultural worlds is completely ignored. Had Nicholi been truly interested in a lively "debate" of contemporaries, he would have engaged Lewis in a dialogue with Albert Einstein, or, if he was determined to stay within psychoanalytic circles, Erich Fromm. It is doubtful he would have been up to the challenge in either case. Most egregiously, Nicholi uses the mantle of his authority to misrepresent Freud repeatedly. This can only be deliberate, since he is referred to as "Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr." and explicitly listed as professor of psychiatry at a prestigious Ivy League university. Therefore, his training clearly makes him an expert on Freud, and his interpretations are thus beyond the pale of scrutiny. No matter that the false "spiritual vs. secular" dichotomy completely oversimplifies Freud. It is similarly irrelevant that Freud challenged all cultural institutions -- especially religious institutions -- but was frankly in awe of spiritual experiences. Potential readers of this book should first take a look at Bruno Bettelheim's slim volume "Freud and Man's Soul."
Rating:
Summary: For the open-minded
Review: One reviewer describes this book as "propaganda," but this misses the point. The author Dr. Armand Nicholi, is a practicing psychiatrist and a professor at Harvard Medical School who has taught a course based on the subject of this book at Harvard College for more than 25 years. And the author shows that Lewis didn't merely "flirt with atheism during his youth," as one reviewer states, but was indeed a Freudian atheist while he was a professor at Oxford. No condescension or smugness by the author or Lewis is intended, just a challenging comparison of views based on prodigious research. But it does take a certain open-mindedness to benefit from this book.
|
