Rating: 
Summary: let the chips fall where they may.
Review: Prior to reading this book I knew very little about Sigmund Freud, and already quite a bit about C.S. Lewis. To be honest, my initial interest in purchasing and reading the book was based on my shameless/addictive quest to own and read everything I possibly can, about LEWIS.
Having said that though, I am glad to have learned so much about Freud in the process. I think that the author does a good job of presenting the viewpoints of each man, with respect to their opinions on such topics as Creation, Conscience, Religious Conversion, Happiness, Sex, Love, Pain, and Death.
Big issues. Worthy of big, deeply felt convictions. And each man had them.
So many reviewers here have speculated that the author does not write this book from a disinterested stance, that he in fact, favors Lewis, and presents him as being a more consistent and (for lack of a better word) healthy individual. I agree that Lewis does come off as being such. But what is most important to me (as a reader of the information) is... is it TRUE? Is this slant toward Lewis as a more self-actualized person fair? Or is it fabricated? Is it manufactured? Is Lewis deliberately favored?
Hmmm...
Dr. Nicholi has studied the philosophical writings of both men for over twenty-five years, and teaches a course at Harvard based on an examination of these two worldviews. Somehow, I do not imagine this present book as some latent "hate-on" for Freud finally making itself known in printed form. It did not appear that way for me, although yes, Lewis does come across as being someone who lived a more personally fulfilled, whole life.
I believe that the quotation marks speak for themselves. This is a well-researched book, I do not feel that Dr. Nicholi is really putting words or ideas INTO the mouth and mind of either figure. Over thirty-five pages of endnotes! In my opinion, this is one of those "let the chips fall where they may" type things!
As is stated in the Prologue, the philosophical speculations (the worldviews, if you will) of these two men are not at all ambiguous. "One of them begins with the basic premise that God does not exist, the other with the premise that He does. They are, therefore, mutually exclusive - if one is right, the other must be wrong. Does it really make any difference to know which one is which? Both Freud and Lewis thought so. They spent a good portion of their lives exploring these issues, repeatedly asking the the question 'Is it true?'"Both men are presented as having troubled childhoods... both being touched with profound losses, alienations, disillusionments, etc. One of the main things that becomes clear in this book is that one of these men discovered the possibility of transcending this pain and disconnectedness experienced in childhood, and the other, quite frankly, did not.
Neither of them were ever perfect, and neither of them were ever perfect[ed]. Both men made great contributions to the fields for which they were formally trained (English Literature / Psychology)... yet both dabbled in these philosophical areas where they each OUGHT to have been out of their depth. This is what makes them so interesting to us. My one criticism of TQOG is that there is a bit too much repetition of previously mentioned actual stories and/or quotes. But overall, I was impressed with the wealth of information and the dovetailing of ideas. It really IS as though these dudes are debating. I agree with Peter Kreeft, who said "It is as exciting as a novel, and we must supply the ending."
Rating:
Summary: Lucid Account of Theism vs. Atheism May Be Stacked
Review: Some reviewers have criticized the author Nicholi for "stacking the deck" in favor of C.S. Lewis over Freud, a sort of hidden tactic Nicholi, who professes to be "neutral," employs. They may be right since Lewis looks like the winner here. Lewis finds peace, love, transformation, and a good-hearted rectitude after his conversion. In contrast, Freud comes across as paranoid to all religion, especially Christianity, which Nicholi points out, was for Freud the cause of much anti-semitism he suffered. Also Freud comes across as a cranky, pompous man ranting and raving against God to his grave, a man who, for being an atheist, sure devotes a lot of energy to this God he does not believe in. Finally, Nicholi shows how Freud constantly contradicts himself when it comes to God. He is a man who embraces a conservative Moral Law for himself (though he professes a sort of hedonism for others), for example. So indeed perhaps there is a hidden subtext and/or agenda here. I don't know. The truth of it is, Nicholi has written a real page-turner here, his account lucid and even suspensful. It's rare that an author can create this effect with argumentation and dialectical reasoning.
Rating:
Summary: Lucid Account of Theism vs. Atheism May Be Stacked
Review: Some reviewers have criticized the author Nicholi for "stacking the deck" in favor of C.S. Lewis over Freud, a sort of hidden tactic Nicholi, who professes to be "neutral," employs. They may be right since Lewis looks like the winner here. Lewis finds peace, love, transformation, and a good-hearted rectitude after his conversion. In contrast, Freud comes across as paranoid to all religion, especially Christianity, which Nicholi points out, was for Freud the cause of much anti-semitism he suffered. Also Freud comes across as a cranky, pompous man ranting and raving against God to his grave, a man who, for being an atheist, sure devotes a lot of energy to this God he does not believe in. Finally, Nicholi shows how Freud constantly contradicts himself when it comes to God. He is a man who embraces a conservative Moral Law for himself (though he professes a sort of hedonism for others), for example. So indeed perhaps there is a hidden subtext and/or agenda here. I don't know. The truth of it is, Nicholi has written a real page-turner here, his account lucid and even suspensful. It's rare that an author can create this effect with argumentation and dialectical reasoning.
Rating: 
Summary: inspired
Review: Struggling with my own views on religion and God, I found this book to be very helpful understanding my opinions and even helped me in developing some new ones. Wonderful book, reads like fiction. I recomend to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Okay to be biased, shameful to hide it
Review: There seems to be a fairly even split of reviewers who see the book as being one-sided (the non-believers) and those who see it as fair and balanced (the believers). Maybe this split provides evidence in itself of the appearance of bias. I believe it is consistently and thoroughly, although subtly, biased; the shame is not in that bias exists (it always does and Nicholi acknowledges the fact once at the beginning of the book), but that the marketing presents it as being unbiased. Unlike Nicholi, I will state my "worldview" and put a scarlet A on my shirt designating me as a non-believer for this party. All believers who prefer not to be exposed to sinful writing can go ahead and stop reading now if dissenting opinions are just a waste of your time. The title of the book was my first clue that this was targeted toward converting non-believers...the premise being that believers don't even question their supreme being. Those with questions, not just warm-fuzzy answers, would be most likely to pick up a book bearing a title that suggests that there is even a Question of God. While reading this book, a few possible alternative titles came to mind that might be worth considering in future reprints: * You Can Die a Happy Christian or a Sad Atheist in 21 days
* Prosyletizing for Dummies
* See Freud. See Freud Frown. Don't Be a Freud.
* How C.S. Lewis Got His Groove Back I'll admit that 3/4 of the way through the book, after encountering several repeated passages that made me wonder if the book inspired deja vu, I went ahead and jumped to the end of the book to see who-dunnit. When I saw that Nicholi's final argument consisted of: 1. Freud didn't examine the evidence
2. Lewis examined the evidence and was converted
3. The evidence starts in the bible
4. Go read the evidence before it's too late ...I felt that I was right on target that Armand Nicholi, despite his honors, awards, and prestigious experience, was just another Christian trying to do his duty and bring others to Christ. I finished reading the last quarter of the book to see if Nicholi ever presented Freud's worldview without a caveat about how unhappy he was, but it remained consistent. Dr. Nicholi obviously has a wealth of research presented here and has done what I trust to be a thorough presentation of what he believes represents the subjects' lives and worldviews as accurately as he perceives him. The subtle bias is throughout the book in his short conclusions and judgments of the happiness or sadness of each subject, particularly in Lewis before and after his conversion. I believe the larger bias initially resides in his choice of subjects. Are we to conclude that all nonbelievers are introverted, angry, and/or paranoid? Are all believers outgoing, happy, and successful? Is it possible that despite Nicholi's rationale of choosing Freud and Lewis to compare based on their prolific writings, especially in personal letters, that an unhappy Atheist vs. a happy used-to-be-Atheist-and-now-Christian serves as convenient playing field for the home team? The photographs on the cover really do seem to support the bias that I interpreted in the book (i.e. Freud brooding; Lewis inviting). The classic photo of Einstein sticking out his tongue would have looked great on the right side of the cover if he had been replacing Freud as a subject. I would still recommend this book to believers and nonbelievers; it was very entertaining, possibly because I felt like I was watching a magic show and could see the magician's hands reaching into his pocket.
Rating: 
Summary: Not an introduction to Freud
Review: This book might give the misleading impression that Sigmund Freud wrote a great deal about religious questions. In truth, apart from a single volume - "The Future of an Illusion," which directly attacks religious belief - Freud's few references to religion are off-hand and of secondary importance to the books in which they appear. This creates a real weakness in Nicholi's approach, because Freud provides much less 'ammo' for a religious debate than Lewis does. Freud might have produced much stronger arguments if he had taken the question of God directly in hand more often. Lewis provides not only fuller arguments, but more delicately shaded arguments. If this is your only exposure to Freud, by the way, don't permit yourself to believe that you've 'read Freud'. This does not constitute an introduction to Freudian ideas. Freud's achievement lies in another field, and I'm surprised that he's evoked so often in religious contexts.
Rating: 
Summary: An incredible disappointment.
Review: This book was an incredible disappointment and I hold myself responsible for not doing the proper research, such as reviewing this site, prior to purchase. I had hoped for an honest point-counterpoint debate. But the book is obviously biased toward the Theist's point of view and anything but honest. For example, when Freud describes himself as an "infidel Jew", you just know that it's the author's subtle way of attacking Freud and how the author really feels about him. What really burns my biscuits is that I also purchased the DVD before viewing the show on PBS. Oh well, maybe I'll be able to get some of my money back when I sell the book and DVD to Half Price Books.
Rating:
Summary: Very Excellent, Revealing Read on 2 Influential Men
Review: This is truly a great read! It deals with two influential figures on history's stage with two converging and diverging views: Freud and Lewis.
They both had experience in atheism, both influential in their fields, both extensive writers, and both still influential in our day.
What divides them and thus the main topic of this book's investigation is that Lewis came out of atheism into Christianity. Thus, psychiatrist Nicholi compares the thinking of these two are "the question of god". Fascinating discussion concerning love, sex, evil, death.
What comes across in this so well done work is that: 1) Freud comes across as a troubled soul, never at peace with himself, his world; 2) Lewis' life and world subsequently changes after his conversion to Christianity.
Nicholi puts forth the evidence from their writings, and writings about them with his comments added as well. Makes one want to delve more into each, but especially for some of us who are far more familiar with Lewis' books than Freud. I especially appreciate his use of endnotes sorted by the page number that they are found. Most useful!
Certainly one doesn't have to totally agree with either man's perspective on things, but as Nicholi asks, which one's views appear more reasonable and concur consistently with how they lived their life in harmony with this worldview.
Absolutely a great read!
Rating:
Summary: A Compelling Way to Tell These Stories
Review: Though the pioneer of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud and theologian Lewis never met (at least there is no record of such a meeting), the author, a clinical psychiatrist and an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, thought it would be interesting to position Freud's "materialist" views against Lewis's later Christian beliefs -- as well as the effects on their lives. The book grew out of Nicholi's "popular course" at Harvard on the two men's
philosophies.
Nicholi uses letters and the published writings of Lewis and Freud and his own conclusions drawn from their lives to show the differences in a life in which the person chooses faith and belief and the life of someone who chooses not to believe. He traces the courses of their lives in tandem from childhoods, through adulthood, careers, marriages, families and even how they approached death (one of the most fascinating details was what Lewis read right before he died versus what Freud read -- Homer and Les Liaisons Dangereuses for Lewis and Balzac's The Fatal Skin for Freud). The biographical information on both
men is fascinating, and it obviously focuses on the evolution of their belief systems. Both Lewis and Freud were atheists as young men, and the author posits that it was a reaction to authority. While Freud flirted with belief in God as a young man, he adopted a firm stance against the existance of a god.
Lewis, reacting to his unsatisfactory relationship with his father after his mother's death when he was still a school boy, chose atheism for a time, and then had a conversion experience, partly brought about by a long talk with colleagues, including J.R.R. Tolkien.
The book does take a position on the issue and points to faith as a help and support in life's troubles, highlighting the difference in relationships between Lewis and Freud (Lewis had lifelong friendships; Freud's friendships usually came to conflict and ended abruptly) and the way they faced their own deaths (Lewis wrote to a friend, "When you die, look me up ... It IS all rather fun--solemn fun--isn't it" (p. 237). Freud was anxious, depressed and sad about his pending death.)
The book is deeply enjoyable and rewarding, and its portrayal of both Lewis and Freud as complex human beings is unexpectedly touching. It made me want to read more about Lewis, and I have put books about him and his autobiography, as well as his book about the death of his wife Joy (portrayed in the movie "Shadowlands") on my wishlist. As a Christian, I was rewarded by the position of the book, but I don't think atheists would agree. However, regarding both men's life and work, the author makes very clear the contributions each made to our world, including the bearing that Freud's theories have had on things we just accept as true today.
|
