God and Philosophy, Second edition

Rating:
Summary: An excellent beginner in the study of philosophy!
Review: 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...

Rating:
Summary: Encourages one's own Investigation!
Review: 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!"

Rating:
Summary: interesting, badly written and unorganized at the end.
Review: 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.