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.
Rating: 
Summary: A Freudian Slip?
Review: How odd that Armand Nicholl claims that C. S. Lewis and his "foster mother" were not lovers. The first book to claim that they were lovers (before Lewis's conversion) was published in 1988 by Kathryn Lindskoog, and she provided strong evidence. Lewis's first co-biographer, Walter Hooper, later stated in a book that they probably were lovers. Lewis's best biographer of all, George Sayer, eventually stated in a book that he had decided they were lovers. More evidence was set forth in books by Lindskoog in 1995 and 2001. In his favorable review of Nicholl's book in the May 2002 issue of Mythprint, David Bratman pointed out that Nicholl's proof that the relationship was innocent is that in letters Lewis referred to Janie Moore as his [foster] mother. "And this from a Freudian psychiatrist! I think I have found a new definition for 'credulity.'" Four stars for Nicholl and five for his reviewer Bratman.
Rating: 
Summary: FAILS TO CONFRONT DEEPER ISSUES OF BELIEF
Review: I had high hopes for this book but ended up frustrated and annoyed. Were those men really as superficial and stubborn in their views on religion as the author makes them out to be? Freud saw religion as a fable, myth, delusion or the result of childhood issues carried into adulthood. Lewis thought there was only one God and Jesus was His Son. The author seems to indicate our only choice is to follow one or the other toward belief or unbelief without ever exploring the deeper issues and complexities of belief itself, without ever touching on the idea that even if Freud were to have embraced his Judaism, he would still be a mistaken "unbeliever" to Lewis. Which is to say that the book totally neglects the question of belief and conversion in regards other faiths and other times and so is very limited in scope and depth. This book is rather like a discussion about the merits of cigars versus cigarettes without ever delving into the dangers of tobacco. The author -- who uses a tiresome abundance of examples to support a very few ideas -- has done us one great service however: He shows us that even amazingly brilliant people mix up truth and opinion, that each man elevated his heartfelt personal conclusions to the level of absolute, objective truth, not realizing that's the best way to seal up your mind and miss the real issue altogether. If you want to see how that works -- and it's certainly something worth learning -- then read this book. In other words, despite their learning, their genius, their breakthroughs, their friendships with brilliant colleagues, their vast opportunities for travel and study, and their incredible writing skills, each man simply elevated his own viewpoint to the stature of dogma. That's no accomplishment; any adolescent can do the same. Where's the genius in being close-minded? Neither man serves as a role model for the person engaged in the impossible but praiseworthy task of trying to transcend his time, place and personality for a glorious glimpse of a wider world. Novice seekers may enjoy this book, but those further along in their study of belief might be better served by "The Metaphysical Club," or "God's Funeral," or "Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor," or "A New Christianity for A New World," or "After God," or "Philosophy and Social Hope," or "The Roots of Romanticism," or "The Moviegoer," books that are less "He said-He said," and more about the complex nature of why people believe what they do.
Rating:
Summary: Wisdom for all
Review: I just finished The Question of God, what a great book! I'm still 20, and was very happy to acquire some wisdom from both Lewis and Freud. I could identify with both of them, specially in their pursuit of The Thing - God to Lewis, happiness through sex to Freud - and learn from their virtues and mistakes. Regardless what you believe, you'll learn from both, and Nicolli himself too.
The book very is carefully written, engaging in each chapter. You see that Nicolli really worked hard to find all the material and put it in the meaningful places. The chapter on love is worth the whole book, so I think is each chapter. I plan to reread the book many times, and my friends who saw it are all reading it too.
For further readings by both Lewis and Freud, I recommend Mere Christianity from Lewis (the best book I've read), and Civilization and its Discontents (something like that in English), which portrais the brilliance and some philosophical arguments of Freud. It is not very clear and homogeneous in quality, but worth. And do yourself a favour and read everything you find written by Lewis, the guy is all wisdom.
Rating:
Summary: A Lively Debate
Review: I really enjoyed reading this clearly-written, extensively documented book on two of the twentieth century's greatest thinkers. Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis have to be the most articulate representatives of their completely opposite world views. Who would have surmised that their writings and lives would parallel one another so closely in their search to understand God, love, sex, happiness, suffering, death (and the meaning of life as the title says!)? The author quotes extensively from both, using their works, letters, and the current literature to define, on the one hand Freud's empiricist, scientific view, and on the other C.S. Lewis' spiritual perspective. He devotes an entire chapter to Lewis' remarkable change from die-hard atheist to ardent believer. Through Freud's correspondence, we see the great psychoanalyst as human, struggling with the same issues as Lewis, but ultimately arriving at a completely different conclusion. Nicholi also brings in his own research as well as that of others to shed light on their world views, making them relevant in the here and now. If you're looking for a lively debate on some central topics, this book is for you!
Rating: 
Summary: Blatantly biased in favor of Lewis' viewpoint
Review: I terribly regret spending the money on this book. I am a fan of both Freud and Lewis. I have been both an atheist and a born again christian, so I was really, really hoping that this would be an unbiased and objective view of the two authors concerning the psychology of conversion. Currently, I am somewhere in between and questioning why I went through my conversion experience. This book does a pretty good job of explaining what Lewis went through in his conversion with all the happiness and ignorant bliss, but falls way, way short in explaining Freud's views. The author's bias essentially seems to be this: Freud was an unhappy man as an unbeliever. Lewis, on the other hand, went from being an unhappy unbeliever to being a happy believer, leaving Freud looking liking he made all the wrong choices. I felt like I was enticed into buying this book since Freud's picture is prominently displayed on an equal footing with Lewis' on the front cover. But once into the book, most of the time is spent talking about Lewis' conversion and how wonderful his life was once he accepted christ. Even to the last paragraph, the shallow insight given into Freud's beliefs was appalling. If you are looking for a fair and impartial comparison of Freud and Lewis concerning conversion experiences, don't waste your money on this book. If you are a born again believer looking for ammunition to support your belief system and bash Freud, then this is the book for you. This book belongs in the christian apologetics section, not in any section devoted to serious inquiry.
Rating: 
Summary: Should be published by Zondervan
Review: I'll start off by saying I am biased, but that's no problem, because Nicholi is too. At least I'm not selling a book by disguising that fact. Perhaps Freud and Lewis could be seen to reflect two differing worldviews held by a large swathe of people. They certainly have been influential to many readers and to our culture as a whole. However, any unbiased party would immediately have to accept that as far as brain power goes, Lewis simply wasn't in the same league as Freud. He wasn't as original, and as a philosopher (or apologizer) his arguments have the tension of wet noodles. I mention this only because as far as the showing in this book, Lewis wins the day intellectually and existentially. Which might be right if the good life = meekness and stolid asceticism. Advertised correctly this book would be another vacuous addition to the religious best-seller of the week. As it stands, expect to be [disappointed] if you judge a book by it's cover.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful, Must-Read Work
Review: Imagine sitting in an audience listening to C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate matters of ultimate significance. Students at Harvard University have been doing this for years under the direction of Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr., associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the Massachusetts General Hospital. Now Nicholi has tackled the daunting task of converting years of study on these two men into a book: "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life". A hot commodity even before its release (as seen by pre-sale statistics at Amazon.Com), the book delivers on its promise. Nicholi manages to establish a tone of civility to the debate that mutes readers pre-suppositions and invites them to listen to both sides of the debate respectfully. Christians might approach the book hoping for a more one-sided presentation of the spiritual worldview, but in the end will come away satisfied, in this reviewer's case even gratified, with Nicholi's confidence in both the reader and truth. Perhaps as remarkable as the labors evident in the depth of the material is the author's ability to describe the debate, and both Lewis and Freud's positions, in an accessible fashion. Readers at every level will find the presentation understandable and surprisingly easy to track given the brilliance of the two men and the complexity of the questions tackled. In the end, readers are left to wrestle with the disparities in how each of the two men's worldviews played out in their lives, and its there readers get a clearer picture of how Nicholi views the debate. This is an exceptional entry in both the spiritual and cultural marketplace. "The Question of God" ought to be the next book seen on everybody's coffee table, or better yet, with bookmarks at their reading chair.
Rating:
Summary: Only for fans of C. S. Lewis
Review: In a nutshell, this book argues that the religious view of the world yields the better answers to the question "how should we live?" than the materialistic view of the world. In one sense the book is right. Human beings search for a meaning in their lives. The evidence is undeniably there that people who have found a "meaning" live psychologically healthier, happier, more fulfilled lives (except for the fanatics). And religion does indeed provide certainty and a "meaning." To prove its argument, the book cites the example of the lives of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud. The religious view of the world is represented by Lewis, the materialistic view of the world by Freud. Lewis's life was unhappy until his conversion to the Christian belief; Freud remained an agnostic all his life, and his life was mostly unhappy. Lewis the believer faced death with equanimity; Freud the agnostic dreaded death until the end. Consequently, the book implies, the religious view of the world is more conducive to a life well lived than the materialistic view of the world. All of this sounds very neat, but there are a number of fallacies in Mr. Nicholi's argument: It is not true that the utility of the religious view of the world in comparison to the materialistic view of the world can be proven by citing the example of C.S. Lewis on the one hand, and Sigmund Freud on the other. The comparison of two other individuals would yield the opposite result: Martin Luther, a prominent proponent of the religious view of the world, for example, was a difficult, troubled individual; David Hume, a prominent proponent of the materialistic view of the world, however, was a sanguine, balanced and happy person. Adam Smith (of "Wealth of Nations" fame) reported Hume's death to a friend with the words, "he died in such a happy composure of mind, that nothing could exceed it." It is not true that Sigmund Freud represents the materialistic view of the world. Psychoanalysis is not really scientific in the sense that its hypotheses are testable (the "unconscious" is a particularly blatant example of this); in its practical application psychoanalysis has a strong aspect of what the Germans call "Seelsorge" (caring for the soul) - the traditional domain of priests. In fact, psychoanalysts for the most part carry the banner of their own particular "religion." Finally, it is not true that a religious view of the world is necessarily conducive to mental sanity (health). There are quite obvious exceptions. The young men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, for example, were devout believers but, in my opinion, not "sane" in the common sense of the word. It is also not a matter of which religion a person believes in. Even the devout belief in the Sermon on the Mount did not prevent certain televangelists from acting outside of the commonly accepted norm of behavior. Bottom-line: A sample of two specimens usually does not provide the correct answers to important questions. But two specimens can be helpful to illustrate a foregone conclusion.
Rating:
Summary: Important Ideas, Good Choice of Subjects, Limited Success
Review: Lewis and Freud are perfect subjects to put in dialogue with one another, and the questions they address are surely among life's most important. For that reason alone this book is worth reading. But the intriguing premise fails to deliver the goods: Nicholi's style is breezy and somewhat clumsy, and anyone really familiar with Freud and Lewis will feel that the readings found here lack nuance and imagination. Indeed, some spice of imagination could have vastly improved the book -- why not make it a real dialogue (as Peter Kreeft does with Lewis, Kennedy, and Huxley)? Eliminating Nicholi's sometimes grating and repetitive voice and creatively weaving the writings of Freud and Lewis into sustained conversation would make a terrific book, and a highly readable one at that. One sometimes feels Nicholi is a high school student writing a book report: "Freud says... But Lewis says... But Freud says..." and so on. (For years, Nicholi delivered the content of this book as Harvard lectures; has it been dumbed down for a general readership, or is this what Harvard undergrads get?) Both Freud and Lewis partisans will feel Nicholi has been too easy on their champion's opponent, and this is a point in Nicholi's favor, but an argument (again) simply to remove Nicholi's voice altogether. This is overall a good book, but could have been so much better.
| 
