What do you think?
Rate this book
Problema numită Dumnezeu: C. S. Lewis și Sigmund Freud dezbat cu privire la Dumnezeu, dragoste, sex și sensul vieții
„Nicholi face exact ceea ce trebuie in aceasta carte irezistibila, scrisa in mod profesionist. In viata acestor doua genii, personalitati unanim recunoscute, se regasesc propriile noastre aspiratii si cautari. N-am putut s-o las din mana.“ — KEN BURNS
„O excelenta carte care cuprinde o dezbatere pe marginea unor intrebari esentiale, cum ar fi existenta lui Dumnezeu, dragostea si sensul vietii.“ — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
„Armand Nicholi a tinut peste douazeci de ani un curs la Harvard care compara argumentele filosofice ale celor doi. In Problema numita Dumnezeu, Nicholi prezinta operele si scrisorile lui Lewis si Freud, lasandu-i sa „vorbeasca“ ei insisi despre credinta si necredinta. Amandoi au reflectat asupra problemei durerii si suferintei, asupra naturii dragostei si sexului si asupra sensului ultim al vietii si al mortii—si fiecare a analizat serios alternativa la pozitia lui.
Carte ce a inspirat serialul PBS cu acelasi titlu, Problema numita Dumnezeu nu spune care dintre cei doi—Freud, ateul fervent, sau Lewis, ateul devenit crestin—are dreptate. Mai degraba, cititorii sunt indemnati sa se alature lui Nicholi si studentilor sai si sa decida singuri ce cale sa urmeze.
Problema numita Dumnezeu este o carte stimulatoare, scrisa intr-un mod captivant.“ — Francis Collins, National Public Radio
„Desi nu exista nicio dovada ca Freud si Lewis s-au intalnit vreodata, prin volumul acesta scris cu onestitate si care te pune serios pe ganduri, Nicholi ii face pe cititori sa-si doreasca pur si simplu ca acest lucru sa se fi intamplat.“ — The Boston Herald
„O excelenta carte care cuprinde o dezbatere pe marginea unor intrebari esentiale, cum ar fi existenta lui Dumnezeu, dragostea si sensul vietii.“ — Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
„Armand Nicholi a tinut peste douazeci de ani un curs la Harvard care compara argumentele filosofice ale celor doi. In Problema numita Dumnezeu, Nicholi prezinta operele si scrisorile lui Lewis si Freud, lasandu-i sa „vorbeasca“ ei insisi despre credinta si necredinta. Amandoi au reflectat asupra problemei durerii si suferintei, asupra naturii dragostei si sexului si asupra sensului ultim al vietii si al mortii—si fiecare a analizat serios alternativa la pozitia lui.
Carte ce a inspirat serialul PBS cu acelasi titlu, Problema numita Dumnezeu nu spune care dintre cei doi—Freud, ateul fervent, sau Lewis, ateul devenit crestin—are dreptate. Mai degraba, cititorii sunt indemnati sa se alature lui Nicholi si studentilor sai si sa decida singuri ce cale sa urmeze.
Problema numita Dumnezeu este o carte stimulatoare, scrisa intr-un mod captivant.“ — Francis Collins, National Public Radio
„Desi nu exista nicio dovada ca Freud si Lewis s-au intalnit vreodata, prin volumul acesta scris cu onestitate si care te pune serios pe ganduri, Nicholi ii face pe cititori sa-si doreasca pur si simplu ca acest lucru sa se fi intamplat.“ — The Boston Herald
258 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
360 people are currently reading
8471 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews
October 12, 2014
A good premise, but a flawed execution. Worth reading if you have an interest in one of the men, but I wouldn't hold this up as a prime example of scholarship...
Nicholi never quite gets into his groove when he discusses these two men. Sometimes he switches back and forth between them with each paragraph, and sometimes he devotes whole long sections to one man, before ending it and moving on to another long section for the next. He constantly throws in quotes, but never really addresses, evaluates, or analyzes them enough for the reader -- he should be using quotes to get a sense for who the man is, pointing out unique characteristics, distinctions in personality, inconsistencies in worldview... but so often he leaves the quote hanging there and moves on to another idea.
There were also key points in Lewis's life that he got wrong or ignored. Nicholi refers to The Screwtape Letters as "an address at a dinner for young devils in training" -- but this is not the format for The Screwtape Letters. The Screwtape Letters are letters from one demon to another over a long period of time. It's Screwtape Proposes a Toast that is formatted as an address at a dinner, which is section of prose Lewis added as an addendum to the book publication 15 years later. Nicholi also never addresses Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore at all, which is often claimed to have been romantic, in his section on sex and love.
And for being a debate, this discussion seems a little off-kilter. On the one hand you have a late 19th century scientist writing in the medical field, and on the other hand an early 20th century classicist/apologist, writing about literature and philosophy. It's clear who Nicholi favors in this comparison, and if I were an atheist I think I would be very annoyed by how shallow he takes some of Freud's points. There's a reason these two men never met or talked, and often this debate felt contrived, forced, and uneven.
Often Nicholi lapses into purely biographical information for these authors in his "debate" -- something necessary only to a certain degree in a comparative book like this. Throwing out facts and quotes from a person's life doesn't make for a good "debate" unless you are actually going to contrast and juxtapose the two points of view. So often he throws out useless questions, but this is not a classroom where students need to think about these issues to study for a test -- this is a scholarly, researched, analytical book that should be doing the thinking for the reader! So often I winced at formulaic questions like "So what was Freud's views on topic A?" or "Can the answer to Freud's views on this be seen in his life and writings?" or "So is love really only about sex?" (the last one is actually on page 162).
Sometimes he even throws in his own perspective with a few "I did this..." statements, and two sentences later he's quoting Freud saying "I think this..." with barely any transition. It's disorienting for the reader to be tossed around so much. Nicholi even is so self-inflated as to put in a "I have often wondered why," about the fact that Anna Freud never married. Why don't you actually analyze why you think she never married, instead of commenting that you're curious!? Nicholi needed an editor to chop stuff out and heavily rearrange his ideas. And make him write more.
Good topics about good authors, but this guy's definitely no Alister E. McGrath.
Nicholi never quite gets into his groove when he discusses these two men. Sometimes he switches back and forth between them with each paragraph, and sometimes he devotes whole long sections to one man, before ending it and moving on to another long section for the next. He constantly throws in quotes, but never really addresses, evaluates, or analyzes them enough for the reader -- he should be using quotes to get a sense for who the man is, pointing out unique characteristics, distinctions in personality, inconsistencies in worldview... but so often he leaves the quote hanging there and moves on to another idea.
There were also key points in Lewis's life that he got wrong or ignored. Nicholi refers to The Screwtape Letters as "an address at a dinner for young devils in training" -- but this is not the format for The Screwtape Letters. The Screwtape Letters are letters from one demon to another over a long period of time. It's Screwtape Proposes a Toast that is formatted as an address at a dinner, which is section of prose Lewis added as an addendum to the book publication 15 years later. Nicholi also never addresses Lewis's relationship with Mrs. Moore at all, which is often claimed to have been romantic, in his section on sex and love.
And for being a debate, this discussion seems a little off-kilter. On the one hand you have a late 19th century scientist writing in the medical field, and on the other hand an early 20th century classicist/apologist, writing about literature and philosophy. It's clear who Nicholi favors in this comparison, and if I were an atheist I think I would be very annoyed by how shallow he takes some of Freud's points. There's a reason these two men never met or talked, and often this debate felt contrived, forced, and uneven.
Often Nicholi lapses into purely biographical information for these authors in his "debate" -- something necessary only to a certain degree in a comparative book like this. Throwing out facts and quotes from a person's life doesn't make for a good "debate" unless you are actually going to contrast and juxtapose the two points of view. So often he throws out useless questions, but this is not a classroom where students need to think about these issues to study for a test -- this is a scholarly, researched, analytical book that should be doing the thinking for the reader! So often I winced at formulaic questions like "So what was Freud's views on topic A?" or "Can the answer to Freud's views on this be seen in his life and writings?" or "So is love really only about sex?" (the last one is actually on page 162).
Sometimes he even throws in his own perspective with a few "I did this..." statements, and two sentences later he's quoting Freud saying "I think this..." with barely any transition. It's disorienting for the reader to be tossed around so much. Nicholi even is so self-inflated as to put in a "I have often wondered why," about the fact that Anna Freud never married. Why don't you actually analyze why you think she never married, instead of commenting that you're curious!? Nicholi needed an editor to chop stuff out and heavily rearrange his ideas. And make him write more.
Good topics about good authors, but this guy's definitely no Alister E. McGrath.
April 7, 2008
I'm a bit conflicted about how I feel about this book. It was for sure worth the read; I learned a lot, and I went through different emotions as I read it and thought both about the material in the book and how the ideas fit into my life. The book is flawed, in my opinion, but could of the bias it takes on the side of Lewis. It's main argument boiled down to: Freud had a depressing life and was an atheist, Lewis had an enjoyable life and was a believer, ergo, believing is the right way to go. I don't think this makes Lewis' worldview right or Freud's wrong, but instead are the possible costs/benefits of these worldviews.
And yet, I am compelled to somewhat agree with this, though not quite full-heartily. I've been agnostic all of my adult life, and while secular humanism, to me, has a wonderful, uplifting aspect to it, this aspect kinda has a peak to it, and you can only suck so much out of that peak at any one time. The rest of this worldview has a lot of emptiness and despair in to it. This is what troubled Freud most of his life, what troubled Lewis during the first half of his life, and has recently been shaking my own "non belief."
I think that both Freud and Lewis have accurate views of the other's worldviews. Freud says we come up with religion because we need that authority in our lives that we loose when we grow out of childhood. Lewis says, in terms of his own atheism at one point, says that quite often he was mad at God more than he didn't believe in God. This is how I often find myself: though I can rationalize that there is no God, I often hate God for not existing. Lewis sees this kind of feeling as an innate desire for God that we all have, which to him is a main piece of evidence for God's existence. I don't see that as evidence of God's existence, but I can see and feel the atheist's anger at God and the believer's need to create God.
In addition, I generally just learned a lot from the book; much of it is made up of the letters and works of the subjects and makes me want to seek out more to read from Freud and Lewis. So with that said, this is a book that I liked reading, though I didn't totally like some of the basis for the book in general.
And yet, I am compelled to somewhat agree with this, though not quite full-heartily. I've been agnostic all of my adult life, and while secular humanism, to me, has a wonderful, uplifting aspect to it, this aspect kinda has a peak to it, and you can only suck so much out of that peak at any one time. The rest of this worldview has a lot of emptiness and despair in to it. This is what troubled Freud most of his life, what troubled Lewis during the first half of his life, and has recently been shaking my own "non belief."
I think that both Freud and Lewis have accurate views of the other's worldviews. Freud says we come up with religion because we need that authority in our lives that we loose when we grow out of childhood. Lewis says, in terms of his own atheism at one point, says that quite often he was mad at God more than he didn't believe in God. This is how I often find myself: though I can rationalize that there is no God, I often hate God for not existing. Lewis sees this kind of feeling as an innate desire for God that we all have, which to him is a main piece of evidence for God's existence. I don't see that as evidence of God's existence, but I can see and feel the atheist's anger at God and the believer's need to create God.
In addition, I generally just learned a lot from the book; much of it is made up of the letters and works of the subjects and makes me want to seek out more to read from Freud and Lewis. So with that said, this is a book that I liked reading, though I didn't totally like some of the basis for the book in general.
January 4, 2019
Armand Nicholi, Jr is a psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School. He is an expert in Freud studies and has done extensive research both on Freud's psychoanalytic method and his life (including regular meetings with Freud's students and even his children). For years Nicholi taught a class on Freud's worldview. But as the years went by he thought that for the class to be more effective, Freud needed a foil: someone who shared some common biography but ultimately embraced a different worldview with different empirical results. He chose C.S. Lewis as Freud's foil, and Nicholi's seminar on Freud and Lewis has been one of Harvard's most popular classes. The class has spawned a PBS series, a play called Freud's Last Session, and the book The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life.
The book begins with a compare and contrast of Freud and Lewis' thoughts on God and morality. In perhaps the most interesting chapter, Nicholi describes the phenomenon of conversion. He describes Freud's initial fascination and ultimate rejection of religion and Lewis' atheism and ultimate conversion to Christianity. Nicholi also describes his own clinical research on the phenomenon of conversion.
The last part of the book attempts to tease out the effects of embracing one worldview or the other. He compares not only the beliefs of Freud and Lewis, but also the way it impacted their happiness, relationships, and ability to cope with suffering and death.
The Question of God is a unique book. It was been very well received and indeed has endorsements from a wide variety of sources: Ken Burns (documentary filmmaker), Peter Kreeft (philosopher), Timothy Johnson (Medical Editor, ABC News), and Ralph Johnson (CEO, Johnson & Johnson). Nicholi is a Christian, and while he has tremendous affection and respect for Sigmund Freud, largely agrees with Lewis. That might not be noteworthy in itself. But Nicholi goes a step further and argues that as a clinical psychiatrist, he believes the worldview espoused by Lewis leads to a greater degree of mental health than the one espoused by Freud. He attempts to show this from Freud and Lewis' lives, but also from his larger clinical research.
I recommend this book highly. A fun read: a mixture of biography, science, and philosophy. Well worth your time whether you consider yourself an atheist, believer, or somewhere in between.
The book begins with a compare and contrast of Freud and Lewis' thoughts on God and morality. In perhaps the most interesting chapter, Nicholi describes the phenomenon of conversion. He describes Freud's initial fascination and ultimate rejection of religion and Lewis' atheism and ultimate conversion to Christianity. Nicholi also describes his own clinical research on the phenomenon of conversion.
The last part of the book attempts to tease out the effects of embracing one worldview or the other. He compares not only the beliefs of Freud and Lewis, but also the way it impacted their happiness, relationships, and ability to cope with suffering and death.
The Question of God is a unique book. It was been very well received and indeed has endorsements from a wide variety of sources: Ken Burns (documentary filmmaker), Peter Kreeft (philosopher), Timothy Johnson (Medical Editor, ABC News), and Ralph Johnson (CEO, Johnson & Johnson). Nicholi is a Christian, and while he has tremendous affection and respect for Sigmund Freud, largely agrees with Lewis. That might not be noteworthy in itself. But Nicholi goes a step further and argues that as a clinical psychiatrist, he believes the worldview espoused by Lewis leads to a greater degree of mental health than the one espoused by Freud. He attempts to show this from Freud and Lewis' lives, but also from his larger clinical research.
I recommend this book highly. A fun read: a mixture of biography, science, and philosophy. Well worth your time whether you consider yourself an atheist, believer, or somewhere in between.
April 19, 2024
Second time through this book. Synopsis is simple: a comparison of the lives as philosophies of Freud and CS Lewis. Each chapter focuses on a different topic: meaning, sex, love, death, etc. It’s clear, enlightening, and just overall a superb book. The only potential pitfall is that it’s probably a bit biased in Lewis’s favor, but as a diehard Lewis fan, I just dove headfirst into the confirmation bias that he’s the man.
——
Here is one of those books that my friends will grow tired of hearing me talk about!! I absolutely loved this book - one of my favorites I’ve read in the past year.
The book is written by a Harvard professor who has spent his entire professional life studying Sigmund Freud, and much of it studying CS Lewis. He uses this book, which he considers the culmination of his career, to pit the two against one another, and to, himself, play the neutral moderator. He does an incredible job.
The author uses each chapter to discuss a major issue - love, suffering, sex, death, etc. - along several dimensions: Freud and Lewis’s expressed views in their books and research, their expressed views in their letters, and the way in which they each approached the matter in their personal lives. The author is a true well of knowledge in regards to each of these men. He does them each justice, never strawmanning either of their arguments, and always qualifying what they said with what scholars believe they meant. He has spent much time with Freud’s daughter and has access to many of Lewis’s letters that he sent to friends and family. All of this information is compiled with a balance of eloquence and conciseness into, in my view, a remarkable book.
I would absolutely love for anyone who is a big fan of Freud to read this book and discuss it with me. Although the author did well to remain neutral, I did not, and as I read, I just could not see how Freud had the upper hand in any topic where he and Lewis pushed against one another. Yet, I do think Freud is a genius. So if you read this book and think that Freud comes out on top, please hit me up.
——
Here is one of those books that my friends will grow tired of hearing me talk about!! I absolutely loved this book - one of my favorites I’ve read in the past year.
The book is written by a Harvard professor who has spent his entire professional life studying Sigmund Freud, and much of it studying CS Lewis. He uses this book, which he considers the culmination of his career, to pit the two against one another, and to, himself, play the neutral moderator. He does an incredible job.
The author uses each chapter to discuss a major issue - love, suffering, sex, death, etc. - along several dimensions: Freud and Lewis’s expressed views in their books and research, their expressed views in their letters, and the way in which they each approached the matter in their personal lives. The author is a true well of knowledge in regards to each of these men. He does them each justice, never strawmanning either of their arguments, and always qualifying what they said with what scholars believe they meant. He has spent much time with Freud’s daughter and has access to many of Lewis’s letters that he sent to friends and family. All of this information is compiled with a balance of eloquence and conciseness into, in my view, a remarkable book.
I would absolutely love for anyone who is a big fan of Freud to read this book and discuss it with me. Although the author did well to remain neutral, I did not, and as I read, I just could not see how Freud had the upper hand in any topic where he and Lewis pushed against one another. Yet, I do think Freud is a genius. So if you read this book and think that Freud comes out on top, please hit me up.
February 29, 2020
At some point, I saw the author on PBS leading a roundtable discussion similar to what's covered in this book. I did a bit of digging. The reality is that he's pushing the C.S. Lewis POV, which I recognized in this book.
March 14, 2008
Always a touchy question, there were probably never two more notably opinionated scholars to debate it. Overall, the author uses his research into their letters, lives and published writings to try to formulate a debate on the main topics of love, sex, death, pain and how to live life from a materialist vs. spiritual worldview.
Saving the author’s notably biased conclusions for your own perusal, I found the work enlightening not only on topics of spirituality and psychoanalysis, but as a biography of the two men themselves.
The most personal epiphany that I had while reading the book was early on when reading Lewis’ comments about love and its pusuit as a purely selfless act as the means to happiness. While I found this helpful and a lovely idea, I was still painfully aware of certain facts and criticisms of biblical history that either he or Nicholi omit. Lewis seems to find most of the proof for his spiritual worldview in literary criticism of the Bible, but addresses the books as eye-witness accounts of Jesus that are in perfect agreement, instead of addressing the fact that their authorship varies by up to centuries and deeply reflects different early branches and sects of Christianity’s political biases. I found this failure to address a rather large materialist criticism dissapointing, but recognize that the error could in fact be Nicholi’s.
As far as Freud goes, I found myself not hating him quite as much as the sexist egotist archetype that he represents in my mind and finding some pity and recognition for his contribution to society and his personal grievances. However, perhaps it is mainly his male dominated world view that often made me wonder what a woman’s perspective in this dialogue could show, particularly a spiritual (but not Judeo-Christian) woman.
Saving the author’s notably biased conclusions for your own perusal, I found the work enlightening not only on topics of spirituality and psychoanalysis, but as a biography of the two men themselves.
The most personal epiphany that I had while reading the book was early on when reading Lewis’ comments about love and its pusuit as a purely selfless act as the means to happiness. While I found this helpful and a lovely idea, I was still painfully aware of certain facts and criticisms of biblical history that either he or Nicholi omit. Lewis seems to find most of the proof for his spiritual worldview in literary criticism of the Bible, but addresses the books as eye-witness accounts of Jesus that are in perfect agreement, instead of addressing the fact that their authorship varies by up to centuries and deeply reflects different early branches and sects of Christianity’s political biases. I found this failure to address a rather large materialist criticism dissapointing, but recognize that the error could in fact be Nicholi’s.
As far as Freud goes, I found myself not hating him quite as much as the sexist egotist archetype that he represents in my mind and finding some pity and recognition for his contribution to society and his personal grievances. However, perhaps it is mainly his male dominated world view that often made me wonder what a woman’s perspective in this dialogue could show, particularly a spiritual (but not Judeo-Christian) woman.
June 16, 2007
An incredible read. This book compares the lives of Lewis and Freud from a fairly psychoanlytic perspective, that is how their signficant relationships and upbringing shaped their theology, philiosophy, and psychology. Its clear from reading this book why one chose to believe in God and the other saw it as a form of neurosis. This book tackles the important topics of Love, Sex, Friendship, God, Pain, & Death. I just re-listened to the unabridged audio and its a great book. The author is clearly a spiritualist as opposed to a materialist.
October 1, 2024
"Există Dumnezeu? Și dacă El există, mai are loc în discuțiile și experiențele colective care ne perturbă constant viața, sau invers, ne-o înfrumusețează?" Un debate 'fanbased' între cei mai mari psihologi ai vremurilor. Într-o parte stă Sigmund Freud, reprezentantul lumii materialiste, iar de cealaltă C.S.Lewis, reprezentantul lumii spirituale. Lewis a adus de-a lungul vieții contra-argumente teoriilor lui Freud într-un mod splendid, bogat în Cunoaștere. Păcat este că nu am putut să-i vedem pe acești contemporani discutând deschis, unu-la-unu, toate aceste 'probleme dilematice ale vieții'.
September 25, 2008
Like comparing apples and rocks. Freud's the apple from the nonexistent Tree of Knowledge, and C.S. Lewis the unfortunately all-too-prevalent Christian apologist whose arguments take rocks in the head to accept.
Consider this paraphrased example, which Lewis uses to explain the beginning of his career in helping people better deceive or come out of the wisdom of doubt into into the molesting hands of faith:
~~~ I felt joy. Therefore, a place for joy must exist. Therefore, someone must have made that place. Thus, joy is to be found in the maker of joy. Thus, a maker must exist and I believe in that maker. I feel pretty goddamned good! Oops, "Thou shalt not...anything." ~~~
Secondly, why is Freud, a man who made his career in what arguably may be called medicine, pitted against the premier Christian apologist? Why not choose for Lewis' rival someone who made a career out of explaining why there is god no, or at least no reason for a god...unless one is a sadist? Dawkins would shred Lewis. The latter could still smoke his pipe, but from the other end.
A ridiculous conceit, and one upon which I'm afraid Nicholi wasted an academic career, and his students' time. "teaching."
Consider this paraphrased example, which Lewis uses to explain the beginning of his career in helping people better deceive or come out of the wisdom of doubt into into the molesting hands of faith:
~~~ I felt joy. Therefore, a place for joy must exist. Therefore, someone must have made that place. Thus, joy is to be found in the maker of joy. Thus, a maker must exist and I believe in that maker. I feel pretty goddamned good! Oops, "Thou shalt not...anything." ~~~
Secondly, why is Freud, a man who made his career in what arguably may be called medicine, pitted against the premier Christian apologist? Why not choose for Lewis' rival someone who made a career out of explaining why there is god no, or at least no reason for a god...unless one is a sadist? Dawkins would shred Lewis. The latter could still smoke his pipe, but from the other end.
A ridiculous conceit, and one upon which I'm afraid Nicholi wasted an academic career, and his students' time. "teaching."
August 10, 2024
Very interesting! I never thought about Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis and their worldviews at the same time. At times a very sad book because it addresses the problem of pain and death. Also there is a prolonged description of losses, suffering and death in the lives of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis.
I have a deep respect for Sigmund Freud and what he achieved. But I have love for C. S. Lewis ever since I read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The author of the book is a believer, so I think his views may influence how the arguments and lives of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis were presented. I didn't mind, anyway the book was fascinating.
I have a deep respect for Sigmund Freud and what he achieved. But I have love for C. S. Lewis ever since I read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." The author of the book is a believer, so I think his views may influence how the arguments and lives of Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis were presented. I didn't mind, anyway the book was fascinating.
December 19, 2015
SO excited about this one. Taking all my willpower not to skip homework and just read it right now...
...
Bother, I wanted to like this book so much. The Question of God wasn't bad, but it lacked. The author is immensely repetitive and he states the same facts and quotes in almost every chapter. While this might work for a book designed to function more as a reference, it made a chronological reading boring.
The author also spoon-feeds the reader most of his conclusions. There is very little intellectual dialogue despite being a book contrasting new very different thinkers. What contrast there is comes from quotes from the two men and frequent, repetitive attempts on the author's part to remind the reader there is a 'great difference' between the two.
Even more jarring is the author's own voice laced throughout the book. At random chapters, he references his own experiences or the conversion of students he studied. With all respect to Dr. Nicholi, I didn't read this book for him and I could care less about what he thinks. Unfortunately, what he thinks is on every page. His bias becomes more evident with every chapter.
Of course, I agree with that bias and so I understood the conclusions he draws but I don't think he illuminates enough why you draw them. That is an entirely larger, more complex discussion. It is certainly one worth having but this book cannot do it justice and to focus so primarily on that is to create more confusion than clarity.
The Question of God was hardly a waste. I am glad I read it. It was intriguing to see the two men contrasted and I enjoyed reading both their writings. There certainly is a dialogue between them. The problem, however, is that this book doesn't dialogue so much as repeat quotes and biographical facts, hype up a contrast that doesn't need to be hyped, and finally draw conclusions about the world that (while I agree with), hardly emphasize the 'lack of bias' promised in the Prologue.
To conclude, I imagine this makes a wonderful class. This is a lecture series without the dialogue of students. You can lead a student to a conclusion over a semester. It is much harder to give that level of weight to a book finished over a few days (or in my case, one evening.)
...
Bother, I wanted to like this book so much. The Question of God wasn't bad, but it lacked. The author is immensely repetitive and he states the same facts and quotes in almost every chapter. While this might work for a book designed to function more as a reference, it made a chronological reading boring.
The author also spoon-feeds the reader most of his conclusions. There is very little intellectual dialogue despite being a book contrasting new very different thinkers. What contrast there is comes from quotes from the two men and frequent, repetitive attempts on the author's part to remind the reader there is a 'great difference' between the two.
Even more jarring is the author's own voice laced throughout the book. At random chapters, he references his own experiences or the conversion of students he studied. With all respect to Dr. Nicholi, I didn't read this book for him and I could care less about what he thinks. Unfortunately, what he thinks is on every page. His bias becomes more evident with every chapter.
Of course, I agree with that bias and so I understood the conclusions he draws but I don't think he illuminates enough why you draw them. That is an entirely larger, more complex discussion. It is certainly one worth having but this book cannot do it justice and to focus so primarily on that is to create more confusion than clarity.
The Question of God was hardly a waste. I am glad I read it. It was intriguing to see the two men contrasted and I enjoyed reading both their writings. There certainly is a dialogue between them. The problem, however, is that this book doesn't dialogue so much as repeat quotes and biographical facts, hype up a contrast that doesn't need to be hyped, and finally draw conclusions about the world that (while I agree with), hardly emphasize the 'lack of bias' promised in the Prologue.
To conclude, I imagine this makes a wonderful class. This is a lecture series without the dialogue of students. You can lead a student to a conclusion over a semester. It is much harder to give that level of weight to a book finished over a few days (or in my case, one evening.)
October 22, 2022
Fascinating comparison of the lives and beliefs of Freud and Lewis.
July 30, 2018
A real debate between these two would have been deeply fascinating, but this book is a pretty flagrant critique of Freud and endorsement of Lewis. I pretty much adore Lewis and I still found it hard to read. The biographical material makes up the most interesting parts of the book, but you could just read a biography of either man instead.
June 2, 2025
Insightful and unique look at a spiritual vs materialist (atheist) worldview through 2 great minds. I enjoyed it but it was focused on the Christian worldview because of Lewis’ faith, which while pertinent to my life, I’m curious now on a wider view at spiritual worldviews throughout different religions. Probably gonna hop to “The World’s Religions” next.
“When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased”
“When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased”
January 30, 2019
Really quite good. I was surprised how engaging and readable this was. Nicholi does a good job putting the views of Lewis and Freud alongside one another in a way that flows quite well and makes an interesting contrast between two of the 20th century's most influential thinkers.
September 11, 2022
A rare book in which a respected Harvard prof compares and contrasts the thinking of two men who shaped the religious thinking of our time. Not only are their thoughts brought before us, but the result of them upon their lives.
January 4, 2021
Civilization and Its Discontents and Mere Christianity are on my list of most impressive books, so I’ve been wanting to read this book since I learned of the PBS series years ago. Although the author, Dr. Nicholi, seems to favor Lewis, as do I, I thoroughly enjoyed his review and analysis of the two men’s lives, ideas, and arguments with respect to the material vs. spiritual worldview.
I read the paperback and also listened on Audible. (The paperback was a birthday gift from two dear members of Team Freud.)
I read the paperback and also listened on Audible. (The paperback was a birthday gift from two dear members of Team Freud.)
August 14, 2017
Don't be fooled by the title, Armand is an apologist pretending to be a neutral moderator for a debate in which he speaks for both sides, & it is all too clear which side he is on. The book isn't so much of a debate as it is a biography, or rather 2 bios laced together. One is a celebration of the life & conversion of Lewis, the other a criticism of Freud & everything he stood for.
This book does not deal with evidence, for or against God or Christianity, outside of the positive effects belief has had on converts like Lewis, & the gloomy negativity of Freud's atheistic worldview. Armand may as well tell we should just accept Lewis' view bc Freud's is too depressing. I'll tell you what's depressing, this book & the way it portrays atheism. Belief in God certainly has a stronger emotional appeal, but that doesn't make it true, nor superior. Religion does not have a monopoly on joy or meaning. It may have helped Lewis get through some hard times, it may have improved his life... good for him, doesn't make him right. Life is hard, but everyone can't just make themselves believe in order to feel better, & we certainly don't need people like Armand trying to convince us unbelievers that we have nothing to live for.
As for Lewis, though I admire him as writer, I can't help but find his arguments weak & even fallacious. I'm not saying he was a liar, & he was certainly no fool, but he was only human after all. Jesus, on the other hand, couldn't have been any of the 3, at least not according to Lewis. This famous trilema leaves out the possibility of legend, despite it's obvious alliterative value, bc Lewis can't see the gospels as fitting into the myth & legend genre. That's odd, since later he admits that all the myths he studied have the same theme of death, redemption, & resurrection. Lewis argues that these were only foreshadowings of real deal. This reminds me of Justin Martyr's claim that Satan, knowing the future, sent counterfeits of Christ in advance. So the later stories about a dying & rising god-man were the true ones on which the preceding myths were based? Got it. I suppose Socrates was plagiarizing Paul when he said things like "to die is gain" & Confucius was ripping off Jesus with his "do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you." I'm sorry, but brilliant as he was, Lewis was thinking with his heart & not his brain, when he wrote about his faith.
This book does not deal with evidence, for or against God or Christianity, outside of the positive effects belief has had on converts like Lewis, & the gloomy negativity of Freud's atheistic worldview. Armand may as well tell we should just accept Lewis' view bc Freud's is too depressing. I'll tell you what's depressing, this book & the way it portrays atheism. Belief in God certainly has a stronger emotional appeal, but that doesn't make it true, nor superior. Religion does not have a monopoly on joy or meaning. It may have helped Lewis get through some hard times, it may have improved his life... good for him, doesn't make him right. Life is hard, but everyone can't just make themselves believe in order to feel better, & we certainly don't need people like Armand trying to convince us unbelievers that we have nothing to live for.
As for Lewis, though I admire him as writer, I can't help but find his arguments weak & even fallacious. I'm not saying he was a liar, & he was certainly no fool, but he was only human after all. Jesus, on the other hand, couldn't have been any of the 3, at least not according to Lewis. This famous trilema leaves out the possibility of legend, despite it's obvious alliterative value, bc Lewis can't see the gospels as fitting into the myth & legend genre. That's odd, since later he admits that all the myths he studied have the same theme of death, redemption, & resurrection. Lewis argues that these were only foreshadowings of real deal. This reminds me of Justin Martyr's claim that Satan, knowing the future, sent counterfeits of Christ in advance. So the later stories about a dying & rising god-man were the true ones on which the preceding myths were based? Got it. I suppose Socrates was plagiarizing Paul when he said things like "to die is gain" & Confucius was ripping off Jesus with his "do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you." I'm sorry, but brilliant as he was, Lewis was thinking with his heart & not his brain, when he wrote about his faith.
August 22, 2012
For those who are not very familiar with the biographies and the ideas of Freud or CS Lewis I think this book would be a great starting point. This book paints a general picture of each man, of their lives and of what they believed. There are also many useful references to the books they have written and the books that influenced them at certain key points in their lives.
It is important to note that this is not really a 'debate' as the book cover proclaims. Really this book is more of a comparison between Freud and Lewis. But if there is any element of a debate at all in this book it could be said that the debate has to do with which lifestyle is better, whether it be the melancholy materialism of Freud or the playful spirituality of Lewis. In reality though it is very obvious from early on that the author is against atheism and in favor of spirituality. As a Christian I'm not bothered by that particularly but I do worry that the author is a little too general as he describes each man. Freud is a little too selfish and miserable and Lewis is a little too cheerful and well adjusted so that both almost become idealized versions of the angry atheist and the cheerful mystic. Having read about Freud and Lewis beyond this book I know that these sorts of labels are not entirely accurate and they only serve to gloss over the complex humanity (and the complex message) of both of these men.
Had this book been an actual debate (where perhaps the author was a little more neutral in his examination of both lives) I may have given it more stars.
It is important to note that this is not really a 'debate' as the book cover proclaims. Really this book is more of a comparison between Freud and Lewis. But if there is any element of a debate at all in this book it could be said that the debate has to do with which lifestyle is better, whether it be the melancholy materialism of Freud or the playful spirituality of Lewis. In reality though it is very obvious from early on that the author is against atheism and in favor of spirituality. As a Christian I'm not bothered by that particularly but I do worry that the author is a little too general as he describes each man. Freud is a little too selfish and miserable and Lewis is a little too cheerful and well adjusted so that both almost become idealized versions of the angry atheist and the cheerful mystic. Having read about Freud and Lewis beyond this book I know that these sorts of labels are not entirely accurate and they only serve to gloss over the complex humanity (and the complex message) of both of these men.
Had this book been an actual debate (where perhaps the author was a little more neutral in his examination of both lives) I may have given it more stars.
December 21, 2020
The Question of God was an interesting read. I am very familiar with the life and works of C. S. Lewis, but not as familiar with those of Sigmund Freud, so his ideas were new to me.
I hesitate to give this book a higher rating than I did because the author seems slightly biased towards C. S. Lewis' arguments. I too leaned in his favor, but I would have appreciated the book taking a less subjective standpoint. Part of that may have been because (as the author himself said) Lewis' writing peaked after Freud's, and he was able to specifically discuss some of the earlier psychoanalyst's ideas. Also, the topics of God, love, sex, etc. were often the central topics of Lewis' works, whereas Freud was, technically, less educated in these topics as philosophy.
I hesitate to give this book a higher rating than I did because the author seems slightly biased towards C. S. Lewis' arguments. I too leaned in his favor, but I would have appreciated the book taking a less subjective standpoint. Part of that may have been because (as the author himself said) Lewis' writing peaked after Freud's, and he was able to specifically discuss some of the earlier psychoanalyst's ideas. Also, the topics of God, love, sex, etc. were often the central topics of Lewis' works, whereas Freud was, technically, less educated in these topics as philosophy.
April 25, 2011
Nicholi does a very good job of comparing the worldviews of Freud and Lewis. He shows how both were influenced by traumas in life, how they responded to them, and ultimately how Freud remained an atheist while Lewis became a Christian. Some of the material is repetitive, as the same quotes appear throughout the book, but overall he does a great job of comparing and contrasting their philosophies, but also their lives.
I found especially fascinating Freud's inconsistent, and doubtful atheism. Lewis, meanwhile, though affected by the death of his wife, remained a fully convinced Christian.
I recommend it!
I found especially fascinating Freud's inconsistent, and doubtful atheism. Lewis, meanwhile, though affected by the death of his wife, remained a fully convinced Christian.
I recommend it!
March 19, 2018
The author is a practicing psychiatrist. The subject matter derives from a Harvard course he taught for twenty five years. The book deals with all the great questions: God, morality, pain, sex, and death. It explores them through the life and writings of two great men who were roughly contemporary: Sigmund Freud and C S Lewis. It forms, therefore, a marvelous intersection of psychology, biography, and philosophy, conducted by a highly capable and interesting guide. To be highly recommended to almost anyone.
Fault: the face-off between Freud and Lewis is not as even or equal as it first appears to be. Perhaps this is inevitable. Freud, the atheist, is unhappy, self-contradictory, petulant, petty, and spurious of argument. Lewis, the atheist-turned-Christian, is joyous, perceptive, logical, warm, and wise. What purports to be a square match between two great minds quickly reveals Freud as the weaker foil to Lewis’s much greater insight. This may be the historical fact of the matter, but it reveals a shift in advertising.
Another fault: there is really a third “expert” in the room who is called upon to resolve many of the questions where Freud and Lewis disagree; namely, the student Christian converts whom the author previously researched. Their experiences and life changes through their conversions provide Lewis with additional support and agreement. The evidence is useful and interesting, but again feels like a bait-and-switch: a book contrasting the ideas of two great men often measures the ideas through psychological research rather than reasoned argument or other evidence.
Despite these faults, this remains a delightful and edifying read for a broad range of people: those interested in Freud, in Lewis, in psychiatry, in God, in atheism, philosophy, and in the great questions of life generally.
Fault: the face-off between Freud and Lewis is not as even or equal as it first appears to be. Perhaps this is inevitable. Freud, the atheist, is unhappy, self-contradictory, petulant, petty, and spurious of argument. Lewis, the atheist-turned-Christian, is joyous, perceptive, logical, warm, and wise. What purports to be a square match between two great minds quickly reveals Freud as the weaker foil to Lewis’s much greater insight. This may be the historical fact of the matter, but it reveals a shift in advertising.
Another fault: there is really a third “expert” in the room who is called upon to resolve many of the questions where Freud and Lewis disagree; namely, the student Christian converts whom the author previously researched. Their experiences and life changes through their conversions provide Lewis with additional support and agreement. The evidence is useful and interesting, but again feels like a bait-and-switch: a book contrasting the ideas of two great men often measures the ideas through psychological research rather than reasoned argument or other evidence.
Despite these faults, this remains a delightful and edifying read for a broad range of people: those interested in Freud, in Lewis, in psychiatry, in God, in atheism, philosophy, and in the great questions of life generally.
September 3, 2020
Wow, this book was so good. Is there a God? Two influential men’s viewpoints are compared and contrasted in this fascinating book. I stumbled across this AMAZING book and devoured it soon after. The author, a professor at Harvard Medical School, compares and contrasts the worldviews of Freud and C.S. Lewis on the subject of whether there is a God or not, primarily, and than moves into the topic of love, sex, and the meaning of life under those two worldviews.
.He primarily uses their own words, arguments, and private letters, allowing Lewis and Freud to both speak for themselves, but he also delves into their personal lives and how their experiences shaped their views.
Why I think it’s worth the read: 1) We often don’t understand the root of certain beliefs. I hadn’t realized certain ideas came from Freud before, and I also didn’t understand how misconstrued some of Frued’s ideas are in popular culture. 2) Both of these men were extremely influential in their day, and argued against and for there being a God. We still use both of these men’s arguments. Seeing the origin of some of these ideas (specifically in the case of Freud), and the story of atheist-turned-Christian in Lewis, in a world influenced by Freud, gave me a better understanding and framework for what people argue and say now.
.Way too often I see arguments about God (and/or Christianity) center almost completely on the more minor questions of how we understand certain passages (especially so- called problematic passages). That should never be the focal point of the debate, but rather, whether we believe there is a God, how our answer to that question affects how we live, and what it means for us. In other words, we need to start with the big questions first, and then go from there. This book recenters the conversation on what both Freud and Lewis knew was the most important question of all, is there a God?
The book is not written to evangelize, or convince anyone of one side or another. What it does is give us a better framework to try to understand how these influential men answered and argued for opposite viewpoints.
.He primarily uses their own words, arguments, and private letters, allowing Lewis and Freud to both speak for themselves, but he also delves into their personal lives and how their experiences shaped their views.
Why I think it’s worth the read: 1) We often don’t understand the root of certain beliefs. I hadn’t realized certain ideas came from Freud before, and I also didn’t understand how misconstrued some of Frued’s ideas are in popular culture. 2) Both of these men were extremely influential in their day, and argued against and for there being a God. We still use both of these men’s arguments. Seeing the origin of some of these ideas (specifically in the case of Freud), and the story of atheist-turned-Christian in Lewis, in a world influenced by Freud, gave me a better understanding and framework for what people argue and say now.
.Way too often I see arguments about God (and/or Christianity) center almost completely on the more minor questions of how we understand certain passages (especially so- called problematic passages). That should never be the focal point of the debate, but rather, whether we believe there is a God, how our answer to that question affects how we live, and what it means for us. In other words, we need to start with the big questions first, and then go from there. This book recenters the conversation on what both Freud and Lewis knew was the most important question of all, is there a God?
The book is not written to evangelize, or convince anyone of one side or another. What it does is give us a better framework to try to understand how these influential men answered and argued for opposite viewpoints.
April 23, 2020
This book was a well-written, comprehensive, and clear study of the views of two major figures in psychology and theology. Although the author does not hide his own beliefs, which weigh decidedly on the side of C.S. Lewis, he provides equal space to the beliefs of Lewis and Freud, offering both quotations and examples of how each lived out his beliefs. I enjoyed reading this, and would recommend to anyone interested in exploring two major sides of the theological spectrum, although Freud presents a somewhat singular view of atheism that could be supplemented with a few more "mainstream" views in other works.
February 21, 2018
Fue muy entretenido y muy revelador el poder ver los mismos tópicos vistos desde puntos de vistas casi opuestos. Ver los resultados que cada perspectiva trajo a la vida de cada uno también es algo que este libro nos da para apreciar. Y también el hecho de entender lo humanos que fueron ambos personajes. Lo disfruté bastante, lo recomiendo mucho.
August 21, 2022
This is more of a comparison biography than actually comparing the writing, but it was an interesting read to see how, despite their differences in beliefs, they were extremely similar in how their lives went.
Recommended 13+ for topics younger readers may not understand.
Recommended 13+ for topics younger readers may not understand.
September 15, 2020
Dr. Nicholi, a psychiatrist and professor from Harvard University, explores the many similarities and differences between CS Lewis and Sigmund Freud, both in terms of their worldviews and their lifestyles. The author draws upon many works and letters in order to understand how the two rivaling worldviews (Freud's athiestic materialism and CS Lewis's Christianity) answer questions of God, moral law, happiness, sex, love, pain, and death.
4.4/5
4.4/5
January 26, 2022
Loved the insights from the minds of these 2 great man. Dissapointed about the end of Freud, but this is where the atheistic worldview takes you: in fear, shame, sadness and depression. As for the happy part, i will see Lewis one day, and have a LARGE cup of coffee with him & Jesus
June 8, 2024
I loved just how detailed this was. Both of these gentlemen are very human through the lens of their personal letters. The question isnt really answerable until we pass away, yet what a joy to be able to ask it with curiosity.
Addendum: what really hit home for me this time was oddly enough compassion for Freud. He was a deeply unhappy man, lived through many terrible experiences, and endured extreme pain at the end of his life. Whether you like/hate/or dont care about him, he started the conversation of 'what is mind?' in the west. And admiration for Lewis, for rising above his anger and sadness.
Addendum: what really hit home for me this time was oddly enough compassion for Freud. He was a deeply unhappy man, lived through many terrible experiences, and endured extreme pain at the end of his life. Whether you like/hate/or dont care about him, he started the conversation of 'what is mind?' in the west. And admiration for Lewis, for rising above his anger and sadness.
August 6, 2019
Solid. Interesting way to frame the discussion of big ideas. But if you are basically familiar with Lewis and Freud, then not much will surprise you.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews