Freud, Lewis & God on PBS

Last updated on: January 30, 2013 at 5:25 pm by tmatt

Freud, Lewis & God on PBS 2013-01-30T17:25:09-05:00 tmatt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Dr. Armand Nicholi of Harvard Medical School was caught off guard as he read evaluations of his first seminar on the life and philosophy of Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis.

“Several of the students said the same thing,” he said, recalling that semester 35 years ago. They thought the class “was good, but that it was totally unbalanced. They said it was one sustained attack on the spiritual world.”

Nicholi had a problem. He decided that the students were right, but he knew it would be hard to find another writer with the stature to stand opposite Freud — perhaps the 20th century’s most influential intellectual. Then he remembered a small book he discovered by chance during his internship in a New York City hospital, a time when he wrestled with the agonizing questions of cancer patients and their loved ones.

The book was “The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis, the Oxford don and Christian apologist. Nicholi revamped his seminar, focusing it on the life stories and writings of Freud and Lewis. Rather than back into discussions of spiritual questions, the psychiatrist placed them at the heart of the syllabus. Decades later, Nicholi’s classic course became “The Question of God,” a book that has inspired a pair of PBS and Walden Media documentaries for television and home video.

The format blends academics and drama. Nicholi presents Freud as a spokesman for the “secular worldview” that denies the existence of any truth or reality outside the material world. Lewis is the champion of a “spiritual worldview” which accepts the reality of God. Seven articulate women and men representing a variety of viewpoints join in the seminar discussions.

Freud and Lewis are represented by their own words, the commentary of experts and actors who dramatize a few episodes from their lives, often seen in counterpoint with archival photographs and film footage.

Nicholi said the goal is the same as in the seminar — to let these giants grapple with the big questions of life. Is there a God? What is happiness? Why do people suffer? Is death the end? What is the source for morality? It helps that Lewis, before his conversion, was an articulate atheist and familiar with Freud’s work.

“I was astonished at how Freud would raise a question and then Lewis would attempt to answer it,” said Nicholi. “When you read their work it is almost as if they are standing side by side at podiums, debating one another. It was uncanny.”

At the center of the project is a word that is criticized by some scholars — “worldview.” Nicholi said it’s impossible to deny that Lewis and Freud had different approaches to life. Each saw the world through filters created by culture, heritage, philosophy, education, experiences, faith and prejudices.

Their actions and writings make no sense when separated from these secular and sacred worldviews, said Nicholi. By studying their worldviews, students can test and refine their own. Many educators seem afraid to even discuss this process, he said. They find it especially hard to discuss questions of faith and morality.

“You can study an opposing worldview and learn everything that you can about it or you can try to ignore it,” said Nicholi. “Many religious believers are afraid to take Freud’s work seriously. They reject him out of hand. On the other side are the critics of Lewis who say that his traditional Christian beliefs were fitting for the uneducated masses, but not for the classroom. You hear them say, ‘I do not consider this is an intelligent point of view and, since I am intelligent, I don’t have to pay attention to it.’ “

This is education?

Through the years, Nicholi has defended his seminar from critics on both sides. He still finds it hard to believe that people who claim to cherish academic freedom and diversity can question the value of reading and contrasting the works of these two intellectual heavyweights.

“We are supposed to be as critical, as objective and as dispassionate as we can possibly be,” said Nicholi. “But if we cannot allow this kind of dialogue between two worldviews to take place in an academic setting, then we are in trouble. Discussing these kinds of questions is what academic life is supposed to be about.”

Previous Post

September 8, 2004

Rites & prayers before the storm

Next Post

September 22, 2004 Snakes, Bush and the Greeks

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Anglicanism Announcements books Catholics doctrine evangelicals family life First person Godbeat Islam Judaism Mainline churches Marriage mass media movies Orthodox Politics popular culture religion sex Social issues Uncategorized Web/tech World World religions worship young people

Select a Month July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999 October 1999 September 1999 August 1999 July 1999 June 1999 May 1999 April 1999 March 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 September 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 May 1998 April 1998 March 1998 February 1998 January 1998 December 1997 November 1997 October 1997 September 1997 August 1997 July 1997 June 1997 May 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 November 1996 October 1996 September 1996 August 1996 July 1996 June 1996 May 1996 April 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 December 1995 November 1995 October 1995 September 1995

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who wrote the most letters in the New Testament?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter Paul John James