C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God - and the Meaning of Life

Price. Prompt service and a good product as described. It was chosen for my Methodist Church Library bought from its memorial/honorarium fund to celebrate the 138 years of the Church-wide program to start a University in each of the 48 states. A further thanks to the store for their part. R.D. Messer, M.D. Retired.

Admire those intellectual views but do not get carried on.
I have never doubted that God is our Almighty creator. He is always
watching and protecting us every moment of our lives.

God's peace is available to all who will receive Him and allow Him to be
an intimate part of their lives.
He who believes and follows Him has nothing to worry or fear!

Without reading the reviews I started this book. Have only heard half, but after a feigned objectivity it is blatantly biased. It is a book contrasting three people actually; Freud, Lewis before and Lewis after his conversion.

Already it is obvious the author is making a case for happiness being exclusive to those that believe. He contrasts Lewis in the last part of his life with Freud and the younger Lewis. It is easy to skew any look at Freud simply because he is open and honest about any assertions he could make against the existence of a superior being.

If you are looking for an unbiased comparison of the two men, look elsewhere. The author simply uses Freud to assert a favorable view of Lewis. Of course, if in the last half of the book the author leans again toward objectivity I will amend this assessment.

I started reading this book in the hopes of gaining some insight into 2 famous writers' beliefs on the "Question of God". But the author of the book, himself a psychiatrist, adopts C.S. Lewis' delusional thinking as the "correct" worldview and the "right" answers to the questions posed. Lewis believed in the literal truth of the gospels, never questioning the implausibility of this claim. Most of the gospels were written decades after the events by unknown authors with an agenda. The central tenet of Lewis' worldview was that Jesus was a real person/God who came to earth 2000 years ago to show himself off to some Jewish peasants. A convert to Roman Catholicism who believed in the trinity and other ludicrous religious claims is not someone I would look to for insights into such weighty issues as the meaning of life. Admittedly Freud does come across as a flawed individual with a pessimistic attitude about life. Unfortunately, the truth is that Freud's worldview was correct and not the comforting fairy tale that Lewis espoused.

Dr. Nicholi is a professor at Harvard University and teaches a course to his students using this same material comparing the life, writings and worldviews of two extraordinary men - Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, and C.S. Lewis, a converted atheist turned author and Christian apologist. While Freud and Lewis were contemporaries (Freud was 42 years older), they apparently never met in person - until Dr. Nicholi's work to bring his students and those who read this book face to face with these men and their messages. Nicholi gives ample background into the lives and inner workings and struggles of each man helping the reader understand the conclusion each draws on issues such as the presence of God, the concept of evil, and the hope of love. Most people probably are familiar with the different conclusions reached by Freud and Lewis - Freud influenced by his naturalistic worldview is forced to eliminate the possibility of a divine creator and looks at life as hopeless and helpless, man is a product of his conditioning and lives out his existence in a hollow pursuit of meaning and significance. Lewis, on the other hand, surrendered his life to Christ and his worldview was radically transformed - from hopeless to hope-filled! While both men lost loved ones early in life, Lewis was filled with love and passion in his later years, even enjoying his sexual life within the bounds of marriage. Freud was a man who seemingly enjoyed little, including sex, and refrained from sexual intimacy with his wife after the death of his father. While the writings and philosophy of Freud seemed to free the moral constraints of others, Freud himself lived by the moral code of a Jew his entire life and died a bitter man angry at the world and at god.

The book is clearly written by a college professor and would be a great read for high school aged students or those already in college and beyond who really want to compare and contrast the two opposing worldviews of naturalism and Christianity not only in theory but also in practice. Comparing these two lives is a great way to compare what they ultimately believed. The Question of God is not an easy read, but it was a very enjoyable read - Nicholi is an excellent communicator and he makes the nearly 300 pages pass with ease.

What Dr. Armand Nicholi attempts in this book is to synthesize a debate on "The Question of God" between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis based upon the authentic words of each. If the project sounds ambitious, it may come as a pleasant surprise to learn that it works very well in practice. Freud, the father of the modern science of psychology, was an atheist who was influenced by the likes of Hegel, Feuerbach and Nietzsche. Lewis was an atheist in his early life but converted to Christianity, in no small part due to the influence of J.R. Tolkien. Like Tolkien a fiction author, Lewis went on to become perhaps the most famous of all Christian apologists. It is not known for sure whether Freud and Lewis ever met in person; Freud was the older by over 40 years, but if they had ever debated the subject of God, it would have been a true battle of great minds.

A number of reviews claim that the book is biased; I cannot detect any evidence of that and feel that Nicholi goes to considerable lengths to represent fairly what each of the "virtual" combatants said in the appropriate context. Nicholi counsels readers in the words of Francis Bacon to: "Read not to contradict ... but to weigh and consider." I suspect the accusations of bias are no more than reflections of this advice ignored. The words of Lewis, when he was an atheist, might easily have been said by today's atheists: "... the impression I got was that religion in general, though utterly false, was a natural growth, a kind of endemic nonsense into which humanity tended to blunder." Freud used even harsher rhetoric: "tales of miracles ... contradicted everything that had been taught by sober observation and betrayed too clearly the influence of the activity of the human imagination ... [the Scriptures] are full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications" ... no intelligent person can accept the "absurdities" or "fairy tales" of believers ... "religious ideas, which are given out as teachings ... are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of these wishes ... when a man has once brought himself to accept uncritically all the abrurdities that religious doctrines put before him and, even so, overlook the contradictions before them, we need not be greatly surprised at the weakness of his intellect."

As Nicholi points out, one cannot accuse Lewis of suffering from "weakness of his intellect", which was among the greatest of modern times. Unlike Freud, Lewis abandoned his atheism and became a fierce advocate for Christianity. One of the reasons was the argument from morality: "when a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less ... [of Christ] the general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and of His immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest ... it is full of wisdom and shrewdness ... the product of a sane mind." Nicholi quotes the atheist Freud as admitting: "one could cite just my case for your view that an impulsion toward the ideal forms an essential part of our constitution." These examples serve to show how skilful (as well as entertaining) Nicholi was in compiling this book; it reads almost exactly as if he were reporting on an actual debate. This is a very interesting and creative account of how two great minds might have "duked it out" had they had the opportunity - an excellent read.

In this book, Dr Nicholi examines the lives of Sigmund Freud and CS Lewis. Rather that rehashing the professional and scholarly aspects of these two men, though, he investigates the spiritual side, their world-views. While both men began life with similar material world views, Lewis, while in his thirties, experienced a life-changing conversion to a spiritual one. In his case, `life-changing' and `conversion' are very accurate.

Don't let the title of the book scare you away. Dr Nicholi does not promote or attempt to convince the reader of the pros or cons of either position but, rather, presents the views and actions of the subjects of this book. Since it was impossible to interview the subjects he relied some on interviews with people who knew the men, somewhat on official biographies and heavily on personal letters of which both men wrote very many. In these letters, we see the feelings and fears that may not surface in the biographies. Their views of religion, God, death, love, friendship and many other topics are explored.

Does world-view make a difference? In these men, it certainly did and a change of such resulted in a major change in the life of Lewis.

This is an area of research for psychiatrist and Harvard educator Dr. Nicholi who has investigated the role of world-view in the lives of others, another of his published works being, "How Does the World View of the Scientist and the Clinician Influence their Work?"

Readers may discover something about themselves when learning about Freud and Lewis. That is always a good thing.

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 their 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?

Professor of psycharity, Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr's book is a brillant look into the ideas and life of two modern icons, Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis. Like the title suggests, the author compares the views and lives of these two men who have, in their own way, contriuted greatly to some of the most common and perplexing issues of all time.
Nicholi takes great pains to remain objective as possible, while admitting his bias. His objectivity is largely intact as he accurately relates the theories and ideas of each person. One should not msitake his form of objectivity for impartiality, a claim he does not make.
This book is very engrossing and reads very easily. The strength of his book is that the author explores how one views the world in relation to how one lives in the world. The author aviods broad brushing statements because he is largely focusing on these two men and not inducing that everyone falls into these catagories, however, as a guide, he does suggest that normally thier is a relation between ones beliefs and life. This is a prima facia position because it stands to reason taht ones views would effect ones practices.
Chapters on hap[piness, sex, love and death are completely engrossing and the book picks up the pace as it towards the end. Further, in the last segenmnets as we read about the last days of Freud and Lewis, we feel for both characters, but we do so differently. Both have greatly influnced their field of study. Both reached beyound the cirles of their fields to have a great impact on other fields of study, and both discussed many of the same topics at length; i.e., sex, love, and death.
In the end, however, one feels compassion for Freud and Lewis, but for Freud, the compassion is felt as loss for a man who left this world in a state of exestential agnst and for Lewis, the sense of loss is selfish, for we want more thoughts and ideas from him. But our compassion reminds the same, for his barriers for love were only opended towards the last years of his life.
In the end, one found "joy" and purpose (Lewis), and the other pain and anguish (Freud). Both insightfully shared their lives with us.

While I found the biographical details very interesting, to match these two particular historical figures in debate style is problematic. The most difficult aspect to overcome is the naturally more appealing style of C.S. Lewis, which may or may not be related to his worldview. Lewis is happy, fulfilled, relaxed, poetically gifted and humble. Freud is plagued by depression, ambitious, anxious, aloof and conceited. To say that these characteristics are a direct result of one's worldview is just too simple. Even the dichotomous nature of the worldviews explored is too simple: we are given the choice of atheism or Christianity. The world is much richer than this: I kept thinking about non-theist Buddhists, for instance. At the very least, atheists deserve a better "poster-child" than the obviously disturbed Freud (brilliant or not). Lewis' relaxed, almost caressing viewpoints are always a welcome relief from the sneering complaints of Freud. That this is the case on every topic addressed, it seems obvious that Lewis has the advantage on Siggy. It would be great to try the same kind of book again - choosing an atheist with a little less disdain for life!

The author has a wealth of knowledge on both great thinkers. While the non believer may protest that the author is skewed (judging on the content of the book, and that he presents Lewis's argument last in each chapter), the author's purpose is to debate the difference between the worldly and religious worldviews as embodied by both thinkers. The fact that Lewis was for half of his life an atheist that shared Sigmund's philosophy, and then later in life experiences a conversion makes how the author presented the arguments make more sense.

Also, the author also uses the actual lives of the thinkers as evidence for their worldview, and in doing so it does expose Sigmund's point of view as weak base on his own life. This is not to say that Lewis was a saint, but judging the thinkers on not just their word but also their deeds helped to paint a better backdrop.

All in all this was a great book for someone who is unsure of their own worldview and wanted to explore the different options. I personally loved reading through this work and have gained an even greater appreciation for both thinkers than before. Both contributed, but in a debate there is only one winner, and the author's analysis definitely points towards Lewis

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.

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.

Freud the atheist versus Lewis the theist. What arguments can they marshal in favor of their positions? Nicholi scours the writings of these two men and juxtaposes their contrasting views on the eternal questions. He also explores the life experiences which helped to mold each man into the person that he was. Neither man had a happy childhood. Most telling to me, however, was the exposition of what their worldviews did to their personalities. I spent the first half of my life buying into the stereotype of the happy Godless versus the unhappy Godly (piety isn't supposed to be fun). Lewis & Freud turn that stereotype on its head. Lewis was much the happier man.

You can weigh the arguments of Lewis & Freud one against another, award debating points, and declare winners and losers, but this book will not definitively answer any of the eternal questions referred to in the title. Although the book doesn't answer the question of the hereafter, it does answer the question of which worldview is going to make you a happier person here-and-now.

One could say that the contrasting lives of Lewis and Freud provide empirical evidence for the wisdom of Pascal's wager.

Quite simply, The Question of God is an exceptional book. Where to start? Dr. Nicholi's basic premise is ingenious: compare and contrast the material (Atheistic) wordview of Sigmund Freud with the spiritual (Faith-based) worldview of C.S. Lewis. The result is an exceptional book that goes straight to the heart of life and living: Is there a God? Is death our only destiny? How can we/should we enjoy life? Answers to these and other life and death (literally) questions are addressed through Dr. Nicholi's remarkable and successful effort.
Dr. Nicholi's writing style is lucid, learned and accessible. Other the store.com critiques of his writing style as merely being "Freud says this, but Lewis says that" simply do not hold water. Dr. Nicholi injects his text on Freud and Lewis with meticulous direct quotes from each man's writings, both public and personal, plus accounts from others who knew Freud or Lewis. Dr. Nicholi's writing succeeds on all levels: fairness (Dr. Nicholi's truly unbiased prose is to be commended), lucidity, and captivation: as the favorable comments from readers on the back cover notes, I too had a hard time putting this book down.
At least one earlier the store reviewer dismissed the book because Lewis, being a generation after Freud, always gets the last word, so the book's premise is hopelessly flawed. On the contrary, while Dr. Nicholi not only notes in the Prologue that Freud had no chance to rebut Lewis directly, he nevertheless anticipated some spiritual worldview arguements made by Lewis, and are so noted by Dr. Nicholi.
Finally, still other reviewers dismissed C.S. Lewis as just another "apologetic" and not a very good one. Ridiculous! I was aware of Lewis' Christianity writings (had not yet read them) but was surprised to realize that Lewis did indeed bring 'authority' to his critical reading of the Bible: his vast education in mythology, and ability to read Greek. Prior to this book, I had simply assumed Lewis was just a Max Lucado or Lee Strobel of an earlier era. Frankly, I very much dislike "Christian inspiration" books that seem to be written only to the "God says it, I believe it, that settles it" type of Christian, but no one else. I was pleasantly surprised to realize Lewis is not part of that "preaching to the choir" genre, but rather a leader in framing faith based on reason. I suggest non-believing and/or uncertain readers will find Lewis' reasoning intellectually stimulating and strong.
Quite frankly, the above raps against the book by some other reviewers puzzled me, as if reviewers were looking for a reason to disqualify this book and dismiss it out of hand. To those reviewers I wish to simply remind them of Dr. Nicholi's simple and quite reasonable request of the reader in the Prologue: he quotes Sir Francis Bacon (I'm quoting from memory): "Read not to contradict, but to weigh and consider." If you are willing to do this, your effort will repay you well.
Which brings up a key point: if you are a non-believer (as I have been), be willing to read this book with an open mind. Weigh and consider. Rest assured, this exceptional, fair book is worthy of your effort to do so. You will be glad you did. If you feel you are in the category of non-believer or uncertain or believe you must commit intellectual suicide to be a Christian, and you have been disappointed by weak "preach to the choir" books like Strobel's vapid "The Case for Faith," you owe it to yourself to read this finely executed, genuinely intellectual and thoughtful work on this important subject; no, make that the most important of all subjects.

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."

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.

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.

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 (...)

With the recent PBS series based on his book, Harvard Professor Nicholi has brought new interest to his analysis of two prominent atheists, and the different paths they took. Although much has been written about Lewis, this is a fresh look that offers considerable insight. Nicholi appears to lean towards Lewis, while in the PBS presentation his panel seems to favor Freud. I prefer the book, and have found in it a tremendous look at life and death, particularly the wrenching despair that is inevitable when one has little hope for eternity. Freud laments, "As an unbelieving fatalist I can only let my arms sink before the terrors of death." A dying but upbeat Lewis writes an aging colleague, "What have you and I got to do but make our exit?...when you die, look me up." Death for believers is a non-issue. Nicholi shows how Lewis & Freud's worldviews affected their personalities and relationships. Ultimately this is a book about the quest for happiness, where it can and cannot be found. For anyone trying to get inside the mind of an atheist, this is a valuable book. I will be going back to my well-marked copy to revisit the contrasting outlooks to gain a better insight into how we approach the question of God.

Sigmund Freud was the quintessential man of his age. He believed the future had arrived and that he was part of ushering it in. C. S. Lewis was a self proclaimed dinosaur. He was a man deeply rooted in an earlier age and mourned the loss of its influence. The difference between Freud and Lewis is much deeper than one was an atheist and another a Christian. They almost could not have believed more differently on what it fundamentally meant to be human. But what makes them such fantastic interlocutors is what they have in common: quick wits, playful spirits, and a clear vision of reality that makes so much sense to so many. If they had actually debated the transcript would be a classic best seller.

But this is the next best thing. Dr. Nicholi (who has taught a Freud/Lewis class at Harvard for 25 years) is a very qualified guide as he leads us through what these two great minds thought and said about the most basic issues of human existence. I wondered if someone could really pull a book like this off without bias. The endnote quote breakdown is pretty close (Lewis had 265 quotes to Freud's, who's quotes tend to be longer, 252) but I detected a slight preference for Lewis' arguments, particularly in the Epilogue (however, I find Lewis's worldview significantly more convincing so this bias might be mine and not his). On the whole Dr. Nicholi serves as a relatively impartial guide to the best arguments of two brilliant men on some of the most important topics of what is real and what it means to be human.

Professor Nicholi has produced a remarkably entertaining and informative study in contrasts by comparing the athiestic views of Freud with the Christian theism of Lewis. There is no question that the author's views align with Lewis on most subjects. That inherent bias did not diminish my enjoyment of this book at all.

Along the way there are numerous biographical sketches of the two men which I found fascinating ,well documented and well researched.

This is a book that invites thoughtful reflection on the differing viewpoints represented by these two great thinkers and in some ways the contrast between them defines the schism between the spiritual and secular realms which occupies so much of our public discourse today.

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]?"

Nicholi may have given C.S. Lewis more stage time than Freud in this book. In fact, I can easily distinguish, if this were a play, one that had Freud as a series of props glorifying C.S. Lewis in a play dedicated to happiness.

Nonethess I enjoyed this book. Nicoli's cited his sources and knows his stuff. He gets the point acress that in each categorical debate, though Freud preached a certain viewpoint in life, he either did not live it, or was miserable due to it.

I can't say anything that hasn't been said before in reviews, but I enjoyed reading this book, and recommend it to others.

Obviously the two did not debate directly, for they were from different generations and probably never met. I think if you are an atheist reading this book most likely there won't be a change of heart, but you may have more of an understanding of Freud. If you are a believer, I think the book might just enforce your faith. The book gave me more understanding of these two men, but lacked in "the Question of God" debate. Frued was a troubled man all his life. Lewis also for the first part of his life, until his awakening. I recommend Lewis's books, especially the "questioners" out there.

A friend recommended this book to me. Glad I read it. Thought provoking and interesting, although I'm not thoroughly convinced that the author is entirely neutral in presenting the information and which man he prefers. In two years as a psyc major had never heard this much detail on Freud's life, and to be honest, if the facts are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them) it leaves some serious questions as to the stability of Freud's own emotional life, despite whether he was an aetheist or not. I'd recommend it not only for those with spiritual questions regarding the existence of a Creator, but also for anyone interested in knowing what made these two men "tick."

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.

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 the store.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.

I was hoping for an engaging point/counterpoint debate on the nature or existence of God but was a bit disappointed. The description of the book implies an unbiased dicussion of the materialistic vs. spiritual world view. In reality, the well articulated and thoughtful opinions of C.S. Lewis are contrasted with the simplistic and paranoid views of Freud. The author points out that Freud is not known for being knowledgable on subjects outside his area of expertise and that his religious views were likely heavily influenced by extraordinary events throughout his lifetime rather than sober reflection and study. Freud is used as to build strawmen for the author to burn down with the fire of C.S. Lewis' prose.

The book is an interesting exposition of the life of these two men, but a horrid presentation of the theist/atheist debate.

EDIT: Some of the more recent and popular reviews suggest that critical reviews are unfairly accusing the author of stacking the deck by misrepresenting the Freud. This rather misses the point. The problem is not how well Freud's actual views are represented; rather it's the selection of Freud as an advocate for atheism that shows either a deliberate bias or an unfortunate unfamiliarity with the greater minds of atheism. He picked a giant of Christian apology and pitted him against a comparative lightweight of atheism. Christians everywhere cite Lewis as an inspiration. You'll see few atheists with the same level of admiration for Freud. Carl Sagan is a much better advocate for the atheist position, as are many others.

I like this book.This book is a comparison between thoughts of C.S Lewis and Sigmund Freud. we view how psychology of two was developed over time through life experiences. Both have a very different perspective and completely opposite views on subject of love, sex and life. It is interesting how people can fall into categories of having optimistic ,positive view of life and on the other hand developing dark,pessimistic view of life emerging from belief and unbelief. Is it religion responsible for forming such views or our psycho-spiritual thoughts creating our own individual psychology where religious believes are playing a small part.

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.

I was obsessed with this book for the better part of a year after learning of its existence and finally bought a copy. I realise that there are few books that could withstand that sort of build-up, but I hoped and was rewarded with a mostly interesting experience.

My biggest problem with the book is the obvious bias toward Lewis that Nicholi holds. His constant pro-theistic nudges are annoying. There are many places where Nicholi goes to great lengths to refute what Freud says (though, to be fair often with his own writings) and then ignores obvious rebuttals to Lewis' arguments. Now, counterbalancing Nicholi's bias is that Nicholi's own contributions often come across as sort of grandfatherly. This makes it is easy to recognize and helps to minimize the unbalancing effects on the debate his voice has(rather than ignoring his voice, I found it much more fulfilling to yell back at the book). With reference to Nicholi, I found his predilection to only speak kindly of (or indeed bother to mention at all) his students who adopt a theistic viewpoint in parallel with Lewis as they move through the course (as when speaking of his paper that examined the effects of religious conversion on students). I think that those comments more than anything else illustrate his bias.

I would be lying if I said I did not enjoy this book. I would also be lying if I said Dr Nicholi provided a fair and balanced look at the views of these two authors. I doubt I was the only person who found themself speaking back to, or in some cases yelling at the book because the bias as so obvious. I recommend this book, but only to believers or those open-minded and curious enough to ignore the bias and watch the fascinating debate between two intellectual giants and a biased mediator.

It's probable that Freud and Lewis never met, yet in this volume Dr. Nicholi brings together their writings and turns them into a dialogue between these two men. The topics cover range from creation, to sex, to happiness, and pain. There is a slight hint of Dr. Nicholi tipping his hand and showing where he stands, but overall I think he does a good job of allowing these men to speak for themselves.

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.

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.

I have bought several copies of this book to give to friends who are curious about spiritual ideas and beliefs but have found other sources of information to be simplistic or childish. This book in many ways is a better book than Mere Christianity, because it presents arguments for and against Christianity, and I think becomes more convincing. It adequately reflects Lewis's arguments, and is also an excellent primer on Freud's theories and worldview. Despite studying psychology in college, I learned several things about Freud that were omitted from my textbooks, and which I think are relevant to understanding him and his theories. Context is always important, right?

Other reviewers contend that the author takes a position, but perhaps that is because the force of the ideas themselves point toward a certain conclusion (at least to them). I don't see reviewers pointing out any of Freud's theories that have been omitted or improperly presented. I would challenge those who criticize this book to offer alternative comparative readings of this quality. Personally, I have yet to see a book offering any form of "debate" or fair exchange of ideas that compels an atheistic conclusion. Which I think is their real complaint.

at the first, i found this book in philosophy category given by the store. 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.

Nicholi's The Question of God illuminates in an extraordinary way how two of the great minds of recent history explored the most intriguing questions in life, perhaps the only ones that really matter. Nicholi sets up a fictional debate of sorts that pits Freud, espousing a secular worldview, against Lewis's spiritual one. The dialogue is riveting. Using excerpts from the volumes of written material the two men produced over their lifetimes, Nicholi skillfully culls passages that give insight into how each man struggled with the "great questions" of life and how each ultimately developed and then embraced his own definition of truth. It's interesting to note other reviews of this book as biased towards Lewis since Nicholi is widely known as being psychoanalytically trained. I found the book the well balanced with the author as adroit facilitator.

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.

This is an interesting book but mainly because the subject matter is interesting. I enjoyed reading Freud's and Lewis' views on questions I myself have had. I particularly enjoyed reading about Freud's view on the nature of happiness. Maybe I'm committing what Lewis would say is the sin of pride, but I always enjoy finding parallels between my own ideas about my life, and ideas that great thinkers have had about theirs. You don't often learn about these more personal views of the great thinkers in school, so I definitely appreciated the book for allowing me this glimpse into their thinking.

But let's not kid ourselves. This book has a clear agenda. Maybe you could say it's an objective look at two great thinkers. I don't know enough about the two men to say it is or isn't. But the book itself isn't an objective look at the materialistic worldview versus the spiritual worldview. I mean, come on, look who Nicholi picked for the spokesperson of the materialistic worldview. I knew the pairing of Freud against Lewis gave away the bias of this book even before reading it. Before I even got to page 50 I could already tell that the author was a Christian, even though he never says so in the book. After finishing it, I looked him up online and saw his name on a Christian Dentists and Physicians home page, where I learned that he's written some essays on the biblical view of human sexuality, and homosexuality. If there's any doubt about the agenda of this book, let me give some quotes from Nicholi the prologue to erase them.

"we must be careful that our concept of God ... is firmly based on the Creator revealed in history and not on our neurotic distortions of him." p.243

"we owe it to ourselves to look at the evidence, perhaps beginning with the Old and New Testaments." p.244

And Nicholi ends the book with this quote from Lewis, giving him the last word.

"We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him. He walks everywhere incognito. And the incognito is not always easy to penetrate. The real labor is to remember to attend. In fact to come awake. Still more to remain awkake."

But who cares if Nicholi is a Christian. I only mention that because so many people are trying to present this book as a fair and objective view of the materialistic worldview versus the spiritual worldview. It's a very telling sign when you can guess the author's personal preference for the subject matter a quarter way into the book. This book is what psycholigists would call a case study. It is specifically about Freud and Lewis, and no greater generalizations can be objectively made from the study of these two men. If you want a book with a greater goal in mind other than learning about some specific comparisons between Freud and Lewis' thinking, then this isn't the book for you. Everyone has been saying to read this book with an open mind. I completely agree. Once you realize that you're reading something with an agenda, the book isn't all too bad. It's like gleaning words of wisdom from a conversation with someone who has a different opinion than yours. You don't have to agree with everything they say in order to not waste your time talking with someone.

Dr. Nicholi, a Psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, has dedicated over 30 years of his life to teaching a class on this subject matter - both to medical students and to undergraduates at Harvard. If you can't attend either of those classes, the book lets you live the class vicariously! It's a fascinating comparison of two incredibly brilliant thinkers, and their diametrically opposite worldviews make for a lively debate! I highly recommend this book!

- First Year Harvard Medical Student

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.

actually c.s. lewis has sold more books, and what would be the purpose of a discussion between two members of the same belief system? Another comment I feel compelled to make is that in reading C.S. lewis's fiction works God is not actually mentioned. Along with this (a personal opinion) is that C.S. Lewis is a better writer than Tolkien, Tolkien borrowed his story ideas from Norse Mythology, and others- see Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung. I do however agree that reading the works of the two men for yourself is a much better alternative if you wish to get an accurate view of them. This book's usefulness is mainly in its biographical content, which is substantial, but not enough to make it really worth reading.

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.