Most books about religion feel like a lecture. You know the type. They’re either trying to convert you or dismiss you entirely. But about twenty years ago, Dr. Armand Nicholi did something different. He took two of the biggest minds of the 20th century—C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud—and basically shoved them into a room together. The Question of God isn't just a book; it's a transcript of a fight that never actually happened in person, yet it’s been happening in our heads for decades.
It's weirdly personal.
Freud was the ultimate pessimist, right? He saw God as a "neurotic illusion," a sort of childhood security blanket we never grew out of. Then you have Lewis. He started exactly where Freud did—as a hardline atheist who thought religion was a bunch of myths. But then he flipped. The book tracks this massive collision between the "secular worldview" and the "spiritual worldview." Honestly, it’s less about theology and more about how these two guys handled the messy stuff: sex, pain, death, and whether life actually means anything.
Why The Question of God Isn't Your Average Philosophy Text
Nicholi taught this stuff at Harvard for years. He noticed that students weren't just interested in the logic; they were obsessed with the biographies. Why did Freud become so bitter? Why did Lewis, after losing his wife, stay a believer?
The book highlights a massive contrast.
Freud looked at the human psyche and saw a "dark cellar." To him, our desire for a Father figure created the concept of God. It’s wish fulfillment. Pure and simple. On the flip side, Lewis argued that if we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, it probably means we were made for another world. It’s a clever bit of logic. If you feel hunger, food exists. If you feel thirst, water exists. So, if you feel a "longing" for the transcendent, maybe the transcendent isn't just a hallucination.
The Problem of Pain and the Reality of Suffering
You can't talk about The Question of God without getting into the dirt.
📖 Related: Act Like an Angel Dress Like Crazy: The Secret Psychology of High-Contrast Style
Pain.
Freud had cancer of the jaw. He went through over thirty surgeries. He was in constant, agonizing discomfort and eventually chose physician-assisted suicide. For Freud, suffering was proof of a cold, indifferent universe. There was no "lesson" in it. It was just biology gone wrong.
Lewis had a rough time too. He lost his mother young, saw the horrors of the trenches in World War I, and watched his wife, Joy Davidman, die of cancer. But Lewis's take was different. He wrote A Grief Observed—which Nicholi references heavily—showing that belief doesn't make pain disappear. It just changes the context. Lewis argued that pain is God’s "megaphone" to rouse a deaf world. Whether you buy that or not, the contrast in how these two men died is one of the most haunting parts of the book.
One died in a state of grim resignation. The other died with a sort of quiet, tested hope.
The Sexual Ethics Tug-of-War
This is where things get spicy. Freud is basically the grandfather of the sexual revolution. He thought suppressing our instincts led to neurosis. He wanted us to be "free."
Lewis? He was more of a traditionalist, but not in a "shaming" way. He looked at sex as a powerful drive that needed a container. He argued that the modern obsession with sex was like a man who kept a plate of food covered with a cloth just to make it seem more exciting.
👉 See also: 61 Fahrenheit to Celsius: Why This Specific Number Matters More Than You Think
- Freud: Happiness is found in the satisfaction of instinct.
- Lewis: Happiness is found in the alignment of the will with a higher moral law.
It’s a fundamental split. You see it every day on social media and in political debates. We’re still living in the wreckage of this specific argument. Nicholi doesn't pick a winner, but he shows how their personal lives reflected their theories. Freud had a notoriously difficult time with his own family dynamics, while Lewis found a late-in-life joy that surprised even him.
Does it hold up in 2026?
Actually, yeah. Even with all our new neuroscience and tech, the "hard problem" of consciousness hasn't gone away. We still don't know why we're here. Freud’s "illusion" argument is still the go-to for the New Atheist movement. Lewis’s "argument from desire" is still the backbone of modern Christian apologetics.
What Nicholi does so well is remove the academic jargon. He makes it about the human experience. He asks: Who lived a more "successful" life? Not in terms of money, but in terms of inner peace.
The Scientific Conflict: Fact vs. Faith
People often think science and faith are at war. Freud certainly thought so. He believed that as science advanced, religion would naturally wither away. He saw it as a relic of our "infantile" stage of development.
But look around.
Religion hasn't vanished. If anything, the search for meaning is more intense now because we’re so disconnected. Lewis actually used his intellect to bridge the gap. He wasn't anti-science; he was anti-scientism—the belief that only science can tell us what's true. He famously said that science can tell us how a pool of water behaves, but it can't tell us why the pool is there or if it’s "good."
✨ Don't miss: 5 feet 8 inches in cm: Why This Specific Height Tricky to Calculate Exactly
Actionable Takeaways for the Curious Reader
If you're looking to dive into The Question of God, don't just read it like a textbook. Use it as a mirror.
Analyze your own "Arguments from Desire." Next time you feel that weird, unplaceable longing—maybe while looking at a sunset or listening to a specific song—don't just dismiss it as a chemical spike. Ask yourself: Is this a "wish" like Freud says, or a "signpost" like Lewis suggests?
Examine your stance on suffering. When things go sideways, do you lean toward Freud’s "meaningless tragedy" or Lewis’s "painful growth"? Understanding your default setting here can help you navigate personal crises with more clarity.
Read the source material. Nicholi is the bridge, but the real meat is in the originals. Pick up Freud's The Future of an Illusion and then counter it with Lewis's Mere Christianity. Seeing the full arguments helps you realize that neither side is "stupid." They just start from different premises.
Look at the "Fruits" of the Worldview. Observe the people in your life who hold these views. Does the Freudian worldview lead to a more realistic, grounded life? Does the Lewisian worldview lead to more charity and resilience? Nicholi suggests that the "proof" is often in the character of the person holding the belief.
The debate isn't over. It’s never going to be over. But reading this book gives you the vocabulary to understand why you believe what you believe—or why you don't. It forces you to stop being passive about the big questions.
Start by identifying which "room" you currently live in. Are you in Freud’s cellar, analyzing the shadows, or are you looking through Lewis’s window? The answer defines pretty much everything about how you treat other people and how you face the end of your own story.