God and Philosophy

I got the book for my cousin for Christmas. I read about half of it and it was well written, not so much circular logic like most philosophy books.

Gilson brilliantly demonstrates that God's description of himself as "I AM who AM", in revelation to Moses and the Jewish people, is the foundation of western metaphysics - it is the decisive answer to the Greek's search for meaning. It was in this decisive encounter between God and his people that God showed himself to be pure Act. "Existence is not a thing, but the act that causes a thing both to be and to be what it is. This distinction merely expresses the fact that, in our human expericence, there is no thing whose essence it is "to be" and not "to be a certain thing thing....Since the nature of no one of them (things) is "to be", the most exhaustive scientific knowledge of what they are will not so much as suggest the beginning of an answer to the question: "Why are they"? "If the nature of no known thing is "to be", the nature of no known thing contains in itself the suffient reason for its own existence. But it points to a sole conceivable cause...there must be some cause whose very essence it is "to be". To post such a being whose essence is pure Act of existing, that is, whose essence is not to be this and that but "to be" is also to post the Christian God as the supreme cause of the universe". (page 70-72). "The true reason why this universe appears to some scienitist as mysterious is that, mistaking existential, that is, metaphysical, questions for scientific ones, they ask science to answer them. Naturally, they get no answers. Then they are puzzled, and they say that the universe is mysterious" (page 128) For Gilson, Scientists "prefer a complete absence of intelligibilty to the presence of a non-scientific intelligibility" "Much more common, unfortuantely, are those pseudo-agnostics who, because they combine scientific knowledge and social generosity with a complete lack of philosophical culture, substitute dangerous mythologies (progress, for example, my inference!) for the natural theology which they do not even understand (page 137). This sounds like a remarkable forewarning of what is happening in our culture where science and progress are elevated to the pantheon of the gods. Witness the complete lack of meaningful debate in the UK concering the creation of saviour siblings and human-animal hybrids for experimentation, the latter being put forward simply because there may be some benefits and hence possibly some scientific benefits. Finally, the question which must always and everywhere be asked is "Why is there something rather than nothing"? (page 188).

Gilson's book is simply a masterpiece! The brilliance of this work is shown in its clarity and simplicity of thought and development of philosophy from the ancient Greeks on. Too often philosophy reads these days have become complex and frustrating, but not with Gilson. A true Christian philosopher, it is unfortunate that a reader might think this work concludes with the idea that "God is dead." This is not the intent of Gilson at all; rather, that of the exact opposite! Find out for yourself...

God and Philosophy is an outstanding exposition how the thought of 'God' has emerged into what Eitenne Gilson has persuaded himself to believe as "HE WHO IS." EG first begins this task by exploring the notion of 'God' in Greek philosophy from Homer's Iliad to Plato and Aristotle. Then, EG explores the early Christian tradition of 'God' from Augustine to Aquinas. Next, EG contrasts Descartes' 'God' with Spinoza's 'God'. Finally, EG investigates the problem and brings to light the error that has been rampant from Greek philosophy to Contemporary Thought of 'God'. The problem has been an existential one. That is, an existential notion of 'God' has been lacking. The error has been utilizing the method of "science" or the "science of metaphysics" in our search for 'God'. This method does not get us any closer to finding 'God' as "HE WHO IS." Lacking an existential notion of 'God' takes us further away from finding 'God' and only gives us a 'God' as an "object of knowledge" (109) but not 'God'. I agree for the most part with EG. Because we have not found "HE WHO IS that which is" (both Being and Essence) we have created a world full of gods. "For when gods fight among themselves, men have to die" (137) - physically and existentially, emphasis mine. Based on man's anthropomorphic grounds in his affirmation of 'God' "HE WHO IS" never was... Indeed, "God is dead!"

i gave this book 4 stars because it has motivated me to pursue more study on Aquinas. as for the book itself, it's far from perfect. i agree with the other reviewer in that, towards the end of the book, Gilson's thoughts seemed to lose structure and purpose. By the last chapter, I was scratching my head trying to figure out what his point was in adding another chapter. it was fairly organized right up to the discussion of the Deists, which seemed to be just thrown in so that no part of natural theology in the modern period would be left out. I could appreciate a few pages discussing the faults with following a strict scientism, which has seduced contemporary thinkers, but to devote an entire chapter to saying the same thing over and over again is just a waste of time. Overall, it was worth reading, but I doubt anyone will be convinced by any argument presented in this book. I think Gilson is preaching to the converted, because i doubt anyone but fellow Thomists and Christians agree with Gilson's assessment of the history of the relationship between religion and philosophy. If you've not familiarized yourself with Aquinas' thought, however, reading this book might challenge you to do so.