I'm almost done listening to The Question of God, by Armand M. Nicholi Jr. Blatantly biased. I wrote a review for Amazon, in part because I was frustrated that I didn't look deep enough to see what it was really all about. Below is the review in part.

It is a book contrasting three people actually; Freud, Lewis before and Lewis after his conversion.

Already it is obvious the author is making a case for happiness being exclusive to those that believe. He contrasts Lewis in the last part of his life with Freud and the younger Lewis. It is easy to skew any look at Freud simply because he is open and honest about any assertions he could make against the existence of a superior being.

If you are looking for an unbiased comparison of the two men, look elsewhere. The author simply uses Freud to assert a favorable view of Lewis.

The author does address the suffering issue, I thought that would be interesting. It turns out Lewis doesn't have an answer either, and goes so far as to say that his god is not really omnipotent. That to me is just a roundabout way of saying such a god as his is beyond understanding, which is a cop out. People like Lewis proclaim to understand the concept enough to live their lives by it, and demand others do the same, yet assert complexity beyond comprehension when it suits them. This is a contradiction.

I almost didn't finish the book. After less than half the book the author drops all pretenses of objectivity and thrashes Freud, almost proclaiming Lewis a saint in the process. When I read books like this there are lines that stick out, begging for formal refutation. I haven't the time for that however, not yet anyway.