The Question of God

The Question of God:
C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, love, sex, and the meaning of life
by
Dr. Armand M. Nicholi Jr
read by
Robert Whitfield

This sounded like it was going to be an amazing listen. I knew that Freud and Lewis overlapped their time in London by a year or more, and hoped that they had been introduced and then had some awesome type of meeting and perhaps an exchange of correspondence, as both men liked to do. But in reality there is no record of the two men ever meeting, even though when Freud moved to London, he lived then a mile away from Oxford while Lewis was a lecturer there.
Nicholi then proposes that he will use the written works of the two men to create a debate that may have occurred had the two met. As a student of classical philosophy I am quite familiar with the concept of constructing conversation to put a point of view across. This could be great.
Could be. But it wasn't.
It becomes evident quite quickly that Nicholi is a fan of C. S. Lewis, as one would expect. I mean why would you teach a class comparing Lewis and Freud if you didn't like Lewis? What also becomes clear just as quickly is that Nicholi is not a Freudian Analyst and in all likelihood thinks that most of Freud's work is of minimal use at best. Nearly as quickly you come to realize that Nicholi strongly dislikes the figure of Sigmund Freud. How weird to teach a class about someone you dislike.
But then it became clear to me. There is no debate. This is an indictment of Freud the Psychoanalyst and Freud the man. This book (and the course he teaches based on it, or likely vice versa) is also praising Lewis nearly to the point of Sainthood.
By the middle of the book, Nicholi is talking about the filthy atheists, all of whom want to to fuck their mother and then kill themselves. I'm not kidding. Sure, he's not quite as vulgar towards the atheist's mothers as I am, but he goes on at length about how all the horrible atheists will eventually turn to suicide because their life is not worth living.
On the flip-side, Nicholi explains how Lewis was starting down the great and terrible path of atheism, but then found Christianity and because he [Lewis] came to it through intellectualism that not only was Lewis transformed into a saint that walked among us, but that he also "proved" that Christianity is the only viable option through rigorous scientific means, by which Nicholi means that a) Lewis was an intellectual and b) Lewis became a Christian and c) Lewis said it was through the use of his intellect. Ergo. Christianity is scientifically proven.
Okay, now I'm just feeling nasty and grumpy and mean, but I picture Nicholi staring at the poster of Lewis above his desk while he writes and then takes a little break to jack-off to the thought of C.S. Lewis before writing about him some more. Nothing wrong with this, just don't call it rigorous and objective examination. Well, maybe you could call it rigorous.
This book really pissed me off. I urge that no one who reads this read or listen to the book by Dr. Nicholi. I just feel sorry for the Harvard Medical students who take this class thinking they're going to get some insight into Freud or Lewis.