The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life

What can I add to over 150 reviews? How about a more detailed explanation of what the book covers? I read several reviews that include the reviewers' opinions and feelings about the book but not many that actually summarize the book. Nicholi's work breaks down as follows....Nicholi does a good job of letting each man speak for himself. Each protagonist is quoted often and at length, so much so that the editor uses a unique footnoting system which doesn't use numbers so the text isn't distracting. Some reviews have faulted Nicholi for being biased but that is hard to do when quoting so much. At worst, he may be selective at what he quotes and chooses not to quote but each man, at the very least, said as much as if quoted here. The interesting thing is he quotes as much if not more from private correspondence as the men's published works which gives interesting insight into their private thought lives. Regardless how much you have read of C.S. Lewis or Sigmund Freud, the book is worth the read just for the color all this private correspondence adds to what we know of them.First, there are two broad sections. Part one titled "What should we believe?" comprises roughly 1/3rd of the book. It is the philosophy of these two geniuses on subjects like is there a Creator and where does our Conscience come from. Part two, "How should we live?" comprises the larger 2/3rd of the book and emphasizes more of the practical, daily impact of each man's belief on his happiness, love, dealing with pain, death, and, yes, even their sex lives.Within Part One, chapter 1 is short biographical sketch of each man that explores how his life experience may have shaped his view. Chapter 4 seems at first glance not to fit theme of Part One which contrasts the two men's philosophies because it is a detailed account of C.S. Lewis' conversion. However, I believe the contrast in view here is Freud's claim that a conversion experience is a "hallucinatory psychosis" against which Nicholi offers up the details of Lewis' conversion to ask his readers whether it fits the description of hallucination.Part Two begins to cover the men's reaction and experience, as much or more as philosophy toward happiness, sex, love, death, etc. For example, in Chapter 5 on happiness we see Freud's view that sexual (genital) love is the foundation of happiness and that unhappiness comes from 1) our bodies wearing out 2) external forces attacking us and 3) other men. In contrast, Lewis sees happiness coming from a relationship with out Soul's Creator. Unhappiness comes from the abuse of Free Will. Their personal lives come to light in that Freud struggled with clinical depression most of his life and self-medicated with cocaine. Lewis had similar struggles before his conversion but found true joy thereafter. Also both men struggled with an obsession with fame and frustration over lack of attaining it except, for Lewis, this went away after his conversion.In chapter 6 on sex, we see Freud's core theories that sexual attraction is the basis of all attraction, even parental, sibling and friend. Interesting both men maintained sexual impulses needed to be controlled but for very different reasons which Nicholi lays out. The private sex lives of both men are laid out in some detail (hint: neither is particularly inspiring).In chapter 7, each man gives his view on love. Freud saw all love as sexual. Lewis followed the traditional Greek view of love with categories and words for 1) storge (family love) 2) Philia (friendship) 3) Eros (erotic) and 4) agape (God and neighbor). Nicholi looks at the general pattern of relationships in each man life--Freud's generally following a pattern of conflict followed by termination and Lewis contrast between relationship struggles before his conversion and placing a radical new value on people afterwards.I found this perhaps the most interesting chapter. Although Nicholi himself doesn't directly ask the question, the take away for me is how do you view love if you start with a worldview then define love within its confines or start with your view of love and let that drive you to a worldview? For example, if you start with a materialist worldview it strongly points you towards Freud's view of love as sexual impulses necessary for biological survival. But if I start by asking myself, "Do I love my wife for more than just sex?", "Do I really love my sister or am I just repressing the desire to sleep with her?", "Do I love my mom sexually?", then that view of love strongly points me toward Lewis' theism. Read the chapter and decide for yourself.Chapter 8 deals with the seminal philosophical problem of pain. For Freud there could not be pain and also be a God that would allow pain. Lewis notes that the majority of pain, issues like poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, and slaves, are the result of man inflicting pain on man. He sees this as consistent with free will and a necessary consequence since "a world of automata--of creates that worked like machines--would hardly be worth creating." Lewis was mad at God over the issue of pain before his conversion. The chapter shows how his wrestling with the question was at the core of his conversion.The final chapter, Death, shows Freud as someone obsessed with his death, thinking of it every day of his life and anticipating it at specific ages based on superstitions as silly as what number hotel room we stayed in. This is a side of Freud we would not see apart from his private correspondence. Lewis likewise feared death before his conversion but afterwards embraced it with peace.I get why atheist wouldn't like the book. It shows Freud as he was--unhappy, sexless, and afraid of death. This isn't a very flattering picture of the atheist world view. The question is, is it true? I have not seen any reviews accusing Nicholi or misquoting or misrepresenting Freud.

Nicoli certainly has mastered both the Freudian texts on psychoanalysis and the Lewis texts on Christianity and weaves them together nicely. There are two major strenghts to the book and one drawback which I discuss below.The first strength of the book is that all the comparisons between Freud's thought and Lewis's thought was fair, historic and well documented. Nicoli does an excellent job of revealing the life stories of both Freud and Lewis and comparing them along side their writings. Both men were brilliant but Freud's brilliance is based on fresh empirical discovery to challenge the status quo of social and scientific thought. Lewis' is more traditional with its freshness based on inspiration of spirit rather than rationality.The second strength is the manner in which Nicoli explores the impact of each man's thoughts on his life experiences, both painful and joyful, and their approach toward death. There is no hypocracy here, both men are true to their beliefs until the end.There is one conceptual and structural flaw to the book however. This flaw has caused many readers and reviewers to think that Nicoli was unfair to Freud and secretly more supportive of Lewis. Some reviewers then come to the defense of Nicoli's objectivity. I think I understand the reason that so many readers think that Freud was placed at a disadvantage in the book. The reason is that Freud was a material determinist and reductionist. This is an extremely common world view for a scientist. However, by reducing belief in God to neurosis based on childhood needs, reduces the lived experience. Freud did not wish to explore the vast range of religious experience, read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience if this is of interest to you. Rather, Freud wished to reduce all human belief in God to a parsimonious hypothesis, that this belief is a deep seated psychological leftover from childhood and is a concept of such ambiguity that all men at all times may project a vast range of concepts onto the construct called God. Throughtout Nicoli's book we see that Freud reduces human belief and experience and forms hypotheses that hold his concepts together. Lewis on the other hand, in exploring the vast richness of religious beliefs, religious history, and religious experience is totally expansive. Thus whenever Freud is put up beside Lewis, Freud appears to be saying the same thing over and over (which he is) whereas Lewis is allowed vast room to expand, generalize, focus on the specific and then expand back out to the general, just like an accordion. This makes Freud appear meager and threadbare in comparison to the rich tapestry of Spirituality that Lewis weaves.Let me give an example: if Freud and Lewis were asked to write about Italian cooking, Freud would reduce it all to starches (pastas), vegetable purees (the sauces), and animal parts. Lewis on the other hand would be allowed to expand to discuss hundreds of recipes and they different forms of cooking in differnt regions of Italy. In the end, readers would claim Lewis won the Italian cooking arguement over Freud, when in fact Freud's thinking leads him to reduce phenomena to basic hypotheses that explain a vast range of experience in a parsimoneous formula, whereas Lewis (much more fun to read) can go on forever since reducing the religious experience or the concept of God is the last thing on his agenda.There is much food for thought here in this well written book.

AWESOME

The paper quality of the book is not good at all , I asked for a replacement, still what I got is not good.It looks like a second hand book

I found this a fascinating read. The author had been lecturing on Freud and started using C S Lewis as a counterpoint. This book is a distillation of those Harvard lectures. Two men who shared the atheistic worldview in their younger days but ended up poles apart in their views on God. i thoroughly enjoyed it.

AMAZING READ! Would definitely recommend!! Very cerebral book and makes you think and reflect! It took me forever to read as I was constantly re-reading and thinking about every chapter in detail. Love the difference in opinion!

If you like a good read from time to time, you need to add this to your list. The author explains both characters' opinions with simple words but very impacting at the same time.