Rating: 
Summary: A Must Read
Review: A must read. This book is accessible,insightful,and thought provoking. Dr.Nicholi uses his understanding of the mind to explore the universal life issues that preoccupy all of us. He does so from an objective, dispassinate analysis of two world views. I found the book to be extrodinarily absorbing and relevant-especially since September 11th. The chapter on the problem of suffering is worth the price of the book.
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: What friends are for - everything or nothing
Review: An amazing book that makes us feel that we are indeed listening to a debate between Freud and Lewis. Nicholi has done a great job of extracting relevant quotes and juxtapositioning them according to subject. To me, one of the most striking revelations was Freud's inability to form and hold on to friendships, whereas Lewis found friends to be invaluable, especially after his wife died. Love thy neighbour as thyself. And he truly did, whereas Freud was dismissive of anyone unlike himself or who may have had an opinion different from his. A fascinating and deep book that I will read again and again.
Rating: 
Summary: Effective Christian Propaganda
Review: Armand Nicholi's The Question of God presents itself as a fair and balanced presentation of theism versus atheism as told through the writings and perceptions of two of modern histories' most influential men: C.S. Lewis (for the theistic side) and Sigmund Freud (for the atheistic side.) Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. Nicholi's well-written and fascinating book is nothing more than Christian propaganda disguised as objective scholarship. This becomes abundantly clear about halfway through when he repeatedly implies that atheists (or, rather, those like Freud who embraced a naturalist world-view) are generally fearful, dour, negative and unhappy while theists (or, more precisely, Christians) like Lewis are content, positive, fun-loving and kind. To his credit, Dr. Nicholi doesn't hit the reader over the head with his presumption-he is more subtle than that-but that is the only reasonable conclusion an objective reader could possibly get out of it. In contrasting Freud's unhappy life with Lewis' apparently more joyful existence (particularly after his conversion to Christianity at age 33) he repeatedly demonstrates the point that only within a spiritual world-view is happiness possible which, even if potentially true, is hardly objective. Even though the book tells the reader to decide for himself which man's world-view is best, Nicholi, however, leaves little doubt which one has the strongest hand. Lest anyone imagine I am a grumpy old atheist with an ax to grind, that is not true. I hold to the spiritual world-view and come out of an evangelical Christian background (though my views have taken on a considerably more ecumentical flavor as of late); yet even a huge Lewis fan like myself could tell when old Sigmund was being set up. He simply can't compete with Lewis' more eloquent arguments or personable style. Whereas Freud comes across as angry, arrogant, fearful and frequently depressed (and as such one more in need of receiving therapy than dispensing it), Lewis appears caring, clever, humble, and upbeat, leaving Freud and his naturalist world-view looking pretty dismal in comparison. This, naturally, forces the reader to assume-as Dr. Nicholi apparently does-that most of Freud's woes were the direct result of his own militant atheism. Though he does acknowledge that Freud might have been dour for other reasons, such as the blatant anti-Semitism he suffered all his life (at the hands of professing "Christians" no less) and his dysfunctional upbringing, it is still clear he perceives his world-view to be the real culprit. I wonder, though, how Lewis would have looked upon Christianity had he been a victim of religious intolerance or if Freud had grown up a gentile? It's hard to tell. The biggest problem with the book, however, is in pairing Freud with Lewis, especially as the two men were not contemporaries of each other (Freud died just as Lewis was beginning to come into his own as a writer and apologist) leaving Freud with no opportunity to rebut Lewis' comments (a point the author, in all fairness, does acknowledge.) Further, Lewis had the distinct advantage of having been an atheist for thirty years, giving him a thorough understanding of the atheist's viewpoint beforehand, whereas Freud had no such experience with or understanding of the theistic or supernatural world view. As such, I think Lewis would have been better matched against the celebrated American atheist Bertrand Russell-a scholar and writer on Lewis' level-or if Freud had been paired up against his colleague and former pupil, Carl Jung (who in later life embraced the spiritual world-view Freud was to so determinedly fight.) Such pairings would have produced debates that would have been more truly objective and balanced (and, I suspect, heated); comparing Freud's psycho-analytical musings with Lewis's traditional apologetics, however, is like comparing the dancing styles of Fred Astaire to that of Eminem. Finally, the other element missing from the book is the third voice of eastern metaphysical thought. Lewis and Freud debate issues like the existence of God, sin, sexuality, and death from a purely western standpoint, treating God as the monotheistic, transcendent deity of western religion. An eastern perspective on reincarnation and divine immanence, however, would have been an interesting counter to both Freud's and Lewis' arguments, and would have really given the reader something to think about. As such, the book remains incomplete in that it offers one only two different doors in a room filled with doors. I suspect, however, that Dr. Nicholi was not really interested in presenting diverse options in theology but was instead out to endorse a particular religious perspective from the beginning. I don't mind if one has made that their stated objective from the start, of course, but it seems a little disingenuous to sneak it in dressed in the clothing of objectivity when it is nothing of the kind. In any case, I still give the book four stars just because Dr. Nicholi does such a superb job with the material in general. Even though he has left vast areas of the nature of the Divine unexplored, he still gives the reader a thought-provoking perspective from which to begin their own spiritual journey, and so I highly recommend this book for the true theophile.
Rating:
Summary: An examination of the most important question
Review: Dr. Nicholi's book fairly examines the answers of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud to the most important question of life which is does God exist? The author describes how and why each man anwered that question. He also shows how their answer dictated how they lived their respective lives, as well as how and what they thought about happiness, sex, love, pain, grief and death. This book is eye opening discussion of the great issues of life framed by men using their great abilities and intellect. In the end it is question of Will to be answered by our own selfish will or by our Loving Creator God's Will.
Rating:
Summary: An examination of the most important question
Review: Dr. Nicholi's book fairly examines the answers of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud to the most important question of life which is does God exist? The author describes how and why each man anwered that question. He also shows how their answer dictated how they lived their respective lives, as well as how and what they thought about happiness, sex, love, pain, grief and death. This book is eye opening discussion of the great issues of life framed by men using their great abilities and intellect. In the end it is question of Will to be answered by our own selfish will or by our Loving Creator God's Will.
Rating:
Summary: A good reference point in my search for life's meaning.
Review: Dr. Nicholi, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, has studied and lectured for over 25 years on the opposing views of life and its' meaning of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud, two of history's brightest and prolific intellects. Drawing on published and unpublished materials, on interviews with friends and family, and a searchable database containing this material, he has a consummate knowledge of their views and presents it well. I recommend it as a reference point on what should be your own continuing inquiry into the basis for our existence and the most fulfilling way to live out that existence in this realm. It is 244 pages of text (in chapters without subheadings within them to guide you as to the change in discussion, a minor negative) plus citations, a bibliography, and an index. I have included my short synopsis of each chapter to whet your enthusiasm for the deeper discussion therein. 1. The Protagonists: The Lives of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis
Both men were raised in religious families, endure hardships, became atheists when they left home. Lewis came back to a belief in God, Freud never did. C. S. Lewis embraced the "spiritual" view - that we are beings created by God and in God's image. Freud emphasized the "scientific or materialistic" view - where nature tells us about the world we live in and ourselves, without a God. 2. The Creator: Is There Intelligence Beyond the Universe?
Freud considered people who were "religious" to be mentally ill. Lewis craved, observed others craved, a relationship with a Creator and believed that "Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists." 3. Conscience: Is There a Universal Moral Law:
Lewis contended that moral laws have always been in our conscience and are universal to all cultures. He said the scientific method can never answer the question of whether or not there is a God or where moral law came from but that it points to the Creator and from within. Freud argued that "enlightened self-interest [is] the basis for social order" and mores. 4. The Great Transition: Which Road to Realty?
Freud never went back to religion, arguing, "that because it is not true, it can't work. Basing one's life on an illusion...will make living more difficult." Lewis "opened his mind" and made an exhaustive intellectual search of the evidence. This discussion is perhaps the best chapter in the book and includes references to other useful writings. 5. Happiness: What Is the Source of Our Greatest Enjoyment in Life?
"Freud equated happiness with pleasure, specifically the pleasure that comes from satisfying our sexual needs. Lewis believed that our primary purpose is to establish a positive relationship with our Creator; this relationship then becomes the basis for our connection with others; and through this process we can best obtain satisfaction in our lives." 6. Sex: Is the Pursuit of Pleasure Our Only Purpose?
Freud considered "sexual love the prototype of all happiness" and happiness to be the main purpose of life. Lewis agreed that sex is important but considers a "deeper, more mature love...with the promise of fidelity" to be more satisfying. 7. Love: Is All Love Sublimated Sex?
"Freud divided all forms of human love into two basic categories: sexual (genital) love, and love in which the sexual desire is unconscious." Lewis used four categories for love: family affection, friendship, romantic, and agape (love for God and one's neighbor). Lewis considers sexuality only specific to romantic love. 8. Pain: How Can We Resolve the Problem of Suffering?
"Freud concluded that God does not exist" based on the assumption that if God existed he would not allow suffering. Lewis considers that "free will" on earth, and in heaven, allows for bad things to happen, and that how pain influences us is more important than the pain itself.
9. Death: Is Death Our Only Destiny?
Freud was preoccupied with and feared death. Lewis, before his conversion, considered it "the inevitable end to a gloomy and pessimistic existence." After conversion, Lewis considered death "the means that God uses to redeem us" and "If we really believe what we say we believe - if we really think that home as elsewhere and that this life is a 'wandering to find home,' why should we not look forward to the arrival [of death]?"
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant exposition of the "world view" question
Review: Drawing upon the vast corpus of written work left by two of the world's brightest thinkers, the author carefully assembles answers to life's most essential quesitons. "What is happiness, and how can I attain it?"..."How can I come to terms with pain, suffering, and death?" Two answers to each of these (and other) questions--one each from Freud and Lewis--bring these crucial problems into bold relief. A stroke of genius to use the lives and works of these two very different men for this purpose. The author's expertise on the biographies of the two men add much to the mix. An essential read for every thoughtful human being.
Rating:
Summary: Erudite And Meticulously Sourced
Review: Few individuals have better argued, and are better remembered for, their positions on the issues of belief and non belief than the Cambridge and Oxford fantasy writer Lewis, who advocated the spiritual world view, and the world renowned Vienna physician and father of psychoanalysis Freud, who advocated the secular world view. Nicholi provides the reader with an outline of more than 25 years of study, plus a popular class he has taught at Harvard on the subject of Freud and Lewis. Erudite and meticulously sourced from both published and unpublished writings of the two great 20th century intellectuals, I finished the book wanting to take the author's class, or at least observe it. Nicholi images a debate between the two, although, as far as we know, the two never met or debated. After brief, introductory biographies, Nicholi compares the arguments of the two from their perspectives on the topics of God, love, sex and the meaning of life. Nicholi ends his thoroughly enjoyable book by pondering whether or not Freud and Lewis ever met in person. Freud spent the last 15 months of his life in exile in England after the Nazi take over of Austria from June 1938 until his physician-assisted suicide in September 1939. Freud was reported to have been visited by an unnamed English professor. Was it C.S. Lewis? Perhaps Nicholi's next project will be a play imagining how such an encounter might have transpired. I don't think this book is biased in favor of Lewis, as some might argue. In fairness to Nicholi, he is only working with what Freud provides him through the documentary record. That record shows a deeply pessimistic world view, as opposed to Lewis' overwhelmingly optimistic world view. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Gripping Exploration
Review: For those interested in the lives and theories of Lewis and Freud, this book is a must-read. It's a fine and sensitive introduction to both men's theories and lives. While some may not agree with Nicholi's method of comparing philosophies with life-adherence or happiness, it's still a very stimulating and refreshing approach. Nicholi is a fine writer as well as a psychologist. This book treats the theories of two great men, but shows two paths of life in many important issues of life. Anyone seeking deeper insight into modernity and Christianity should peruse here as well.
|
