What do you think?
Rate this book
God and Philosophy
In this classic work, the eminent Catholic philosopher Étienne Gilson deals with one of the most important and perplexing metaphysical the relation between our notion of God and demonstrations of his existence. Gilson examines Greek, Christian, and modern philosophy as well as the thinking that has grown out of our age of science in this fundamental analysis of the problem of God.
“[I] commend to another generation of seekers and students this deeply earnest and yet wistfully gentle little essay on the most important (and often, at least nowadays, the most neglected) of all metaphysical—and existential—questions. . . . The historical sweep is breathtaking, the one-liners arresting, and the style, both intellectual and literary, altogether engaging.” —Jaroslav Pelikan, from the foreword
“We have come to expect from the pen of M. Gilson not only an accurate exposition of the thought of the great philosophers, ancient and modern, but what is of much more importance and of greater interest, a keen and sympathetic insight into the reasons for that thought. The present volume does not fail to fulfill our expectations. It should be read by every Christian thinker.” —Ralph O. Dates, America
“[I] commend to another generation of seekers and students this deeply earnest and yet wistfully gentle little essay on the most important (and often, at least nowadays, the most neglected) of all metaphysical—and existential—questions. . . . The historical sweep is breathtaking, the one-liners arresting, and the style, both intellectual and literary, altogether engaging.” —Jaroslav Pelikan, from the foreword
“We have come to expect from the pen of M. Gilson not only an accurate exposition of the thought of the great philosophers, ancient and modern, but what is of much more importance and of greater interest, a keen and sympathetic insight into the reasons for that thought. The present volume does not fail to fulfill our expectations. It should be read by every Christian thinker.” —Ralph O. Dates, America
182 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1941
20 people are currently reading
625 people want to read
About the author
Étienne Gilson
248 books165 followersÉtienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.
Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
April 19, 2022
Gilson, Etienne. God and Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1946 [2002].
Each discipline has its handful of masters who have redefined the discipline in their own ways. Etienne Gilson, the French neo-Thomist, is one such master. After Gilson, we now have to speak of “existential Thomism,” and we are much richer for it. Gilson begins with a survey of Greek philosophy and why the Greeks could not escape their own metaphysics. That is standard enough. He then extends it to Augustine and notes that Augustine was hampered by the same metaphysics. Thomas Aquinas rescued Augustine, only to have Descartes (and Kant) ruin it all.
Did the Greeks really believe in their gods? That is not so easy to answer as one might suppose. The problem is linking the Greek gods with the “principles” by which Greek philosophy tried to explain the universe. Thales said the principle was water, another said it was fire, and so on. As Gilson notes, “On the one side a man posits a certain natural element as the very stuff this world is made of,” and on the other side “the same man posits as a sort of axiom that all things are full of gods” (Gilson 3). There is a continuum, then, between nature and the gods.
If one simply sees the gods as “mythological” explanations of nature, then there is no real problem. Unfortunately, as Gilson notes, that will not work. Greek poets say that both the gods and nature (or natural elements) are living powers that have wills (7-8). One could still rescue the Greek religion by saying that modern man sometimes personifies nature. Very true. Unfortunately, as Hera reminds Zeus, the gods must bow to Fate (11). We do not speak of mythological natural elements this way.
Regardless of how one glosses the Iliad, the original problem remains: if the world is full of gods, then “either your gods are not principles (e.g., have no explanatory power–JA), or there is no longer one principle as the source of all things” (14). Making the matter even worse, nature seemed to be a self-explanatory fact. The best that Greece could do was Aristotle. The ultimate rational principle must be an Intelligence, not a thing. That is why Plato’s Idea failed. Ideas are not gods, nor are they persons.
Enter Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. Before we ridicule Aristotle, we need to appreciate what he accomplished. He moved beyond Plato’s impasse. Even better, his Thought is itself an eternal Act of thinking (33). As good as it is, there are problems. His Thought can only think of Itself. There is no need for it to enter into a relationship with us. Even worse, there is no connection between Thought and Existence.
Gilson has been criticized for reading Thomas Aquinas back into the Burning Bush, as though the living God of divine revelation were the same as the Unmoved Mover. Such a criticism is premature, though. If anything, Augustine and Aquinas introduced dynamism into the equation. There is a world of difference between “Thought thinking Thought” and “I am who is.” As Gilson notes, “Christian revelation was establishing existence as the deepest layer of reality as well as the supreme attribute of divinity” (44).
Plotinus, and later Augustine, could only speak in terms of “to be.” For them, true being was immaterial, eternal, immutable–attributes that just as easily apply to Platonic Ideas as to God. For Aquinas, “to be is the very act whereby an essence is” (64). Previous philosophers had been stuck at the level of essence. Now with existence, we can understand how the existential energies flow to various essences (65).
Bottom line: existence is not a thing but the act that causes a thing (66).
Like many Catholic philosophers, Gilson’s story of later philosophy is one of decline and fall. Nothing new is here, though his writing is wonderfully lucid and often funny. Here are some examples:
“Because God is supremely intelligent, he could not fail to do what Descartes would have done, had Descartes been God” (96).
“A most gratifying certitude indeed, at least so long as it lasts, and Voltaire was to see to it that it did not outlive the earthquake of Lisbon” (99).
“All the other positions [i.e., between Thomas Aquinas and Kant] are but halfway houses on the roads which lead to absolute religious agnosticism or to the natural theology of Christian metaphysics. Philosophical halfway houses have always been pretty crowded” (114).
This might be the best intro to Gilson, if not necessarily the best intro to Thomas Aquinas. The order of reading should be thus: the present work, Thomas’s Being and Essence, Feser’s work on Aquinas, and then probably Aquinas himself.
Each discipline has its handful of masters who have redefined the discipline in their own ways. Etienne Gilson, the French neo-Thomist, is one such master. After Gilson, we now have to speak of “existential Thomism,” and we are much richer for it. Gilson begins with a survey of Greek philosophy and why the Greeks could not escape their own metaphysics. That is standard enough. He then extends it to Augustine and notes that Augustine was hampered by the same metaphysics. Thomas Aquinas rescued Augustine, only to have Descartes (and Kant) ruin it all.
Did the Greeks really believe in their gods? That is not so easy to answer as one might suppose. The problem is linking the Greek gods with the “principles” by which Greek philosophy tried to explain the universe. Thales said the principle was water, another said it was fire, and so on. As Gilson notes, “On the one side a man posits a certain natural element as the very stuff this world is made of,” and on the other side “the same man posits as a sort of axiom that all things are full of gods” (Gilson 3). There is a continuum, then, between nature and the gods.
If one simply sees the gods as “mythological” explanations of nature, then there is no real problem. Unfortunately, as Gilson notes, that will not work. Greek poets say that both the gods and nature (or natural elements) are living powers that have wills (7-8). One could still rescue the Greek religion by saying that modern man sometimes personifies nature. Very true. Unfortunately, as Hera reminds Zeus, the gods must bow to Fate (11). We do not speak of mythological natural elements this way.
Regardless of how one glosses the Iliad, the original problem remains: if the world is full of gods, then “either your gods are not principles (e.g., have no explanatory power–JA), or there is no longer one principle as the source of all things” (14). Making the matter even worse, nature seemed to be a self-explanatory fact. The best that Greece could do was Aristotle. The ultimate rational principle must be an Intelligence, not a thing. That is why Plato’s Idea failed. Ideas are not gods, nor are they persons.
Enter Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover. Before we ridicule Aristotle, we need to appreciate what he accomplished. He moved beyond Plato’s impasse. Even better, his Thought is itself an eternal Act of thinking (33). As good as it is, there are problems. His Thought can only think of Itself. There is no need for it to enter into a relationship with us. Even worse, there is no connection between Thought and Existence.
Gilson has been criticized for reading Thomas Aquinas back into the Burning Bush, as though the living God of divine revelation were the same as the Unmoved Mover. Such a criticism is premature, though. If anything, Augustine and Aquinas introduced dynamism into the equation. There is a world of difference between “Thought thinking Thought” and “I am who is.” As Gilson notes, “Christian revelation was establishing existence as the deepest layer of reality as well as the supreme attribute of divinity” (44).
Plotinus, and later Augustine, could only speak in terms of “to be.” For them, true being was immaterial, eternal, immutable–attributes that just as easily apply to Platonic Ideas as to God. For Aquinas, “to be is the very act whereby an essence is” (64). Previous philosophers had been stuck at the level of essence. Now with existence, we can understand how the existential energies flow to various essences (65).
Bottom line: existence is not a thing but the act that causes a thing (66).
Like many Catholic philosophers, Gilson’s story of later philosophy is one of decline and fall. Nothing new is here, though his writing is wonderfully lucid and often funny. Here are some examples:
“Because God is supremely intelligent, he could not fail to do what Descartes would have done, had Descartes been God” (96).
“A most gratifying certitude indeed, at least so long as it lasts, and Voltaire was to see to it that it did not outlive the earthquake of Lisbon” (99).
“All the other positions [i.e., between Thomas Aquinas and Kant] are but halfway houses on the roads which lead to absolute religious agnosticism or to the natural theology of Christian metaphysics. Philosophical halfway houses have always been pretty crowded” (114).
This might be the best intro to Gilson, if not necessarily the best intro to Thomas Aquinas. The order of reading should be thus: the present work, Thomas’s Being and Essence, Feser’s work on Aquinas, and then probably Aquinas himself.
April 24, 2017
Leave your expectations at the door.
I purchased this book knowing that Etienne Gilson was an emminent Thomist, historian of philosophy, founder of the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto and thinking that this book would be about the relationship between God and Philosophy.
However, God and Philosophy is more a history of the concept of God in Philosophy, much like the Unity of Philosophical Experience is a history of the problem of universals in philosophy. The book is composed of four lectures:
(The Intro by Jaroslaw Pelikan is well worth the read, as are most things by the Lutheran scholar turned Orthodox)
1) the concept of God in Greek philosophy: Pre-Socratics, especially Thales and a discussion on the relationship between the Greek Philosophers and Homer. Then sections on Plato, Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius
2) God and Christian philosophy: starts with the tetragrammaton (YHWH) which rightfully should be Jewish-Christian philosophy as the foundation for Christian metaphysics. Then it is mostly Plotinus/Plato's influence on Augustine and Aquinas
3) the chapter on Modern philosophy follows: Gilson's knowledge of Descartes here comes in full force (Gilson did his doctorate on Descartes) and he uses Aquinas as a foil for Descartes (and Malebranche and Pascal) to deconstruct their concept of God. Spinoza and deism are also examined
4) and finally God and contemporary thought: Kant and Compte feature prominently, then a section dealing with the relationship between science and god and philosophy (taken mostly from Julian Huxley
The entire book is framed by the key insight (or at least what Gilson argues is the key insight) derived from Sacred Scripture, the revelation to Moses from the burning bush concerning God: I AM (YHWY). Gilson interprets this in Thomistic fashion: God is existence itself (his essence is existence).
This to Aquinas and Gilson is the proper root of all Christian (and I suppose Jewish) metaphysics and any deviation from that (Descartes, Malebranch, Spinoza, Pascal, Kant, Compte, Huxley) ends up as dead-ends. The Greeks prior to it were wandering around, poking at the bush but it too the genius insight of the Jews to cement the concept and send metaphysics off in the proper direction.
Some good quotations:
"With Aristotle the Greeks had gained an indisputably rational theology, but lost their religion." (p. 34)
"the God of Saint Thomas was an infinte ocean of existence, the God of Descartes is an infinitely powerful fountain of existence" (p. 87)
"Descartes had been either religiously right and philosophically wrong, or philosophically right and religiously wrong; Spinoza has been wholly right or wholly wrong" (p. 100)
"Spinoza is a Jew who turned 'Him Who Is' into a mere 'That Which Is' and he could love 'that which is' but never expected that he himself would be loved by it" (p. 103)
"Millions of men are starving or bleeding to death because two or three of these pseudoscientific or pseudosocial deified abstractions are now at war" (p. 136)
I purchased this book knowing that Etienne Gilson was an emminent Thomist, historian of philosophy, founder of the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies at the University of Toronto and thinking that this book would be about the relationship between God and Philosophy.
However, God and Philosophy is more a history of the concept of God in Philosophy, much like the Unity of Philosophical Experience is a history of the problem of universals in philosophy. The book is composed of four lectures:
(The Intro by Jaroslaw Pelikan is well worth the read, as are most things by the Lutheran scholar turned Orthodox)
1) the concept of God in Greek philosophy: Pre-Socratics, especially Thales and a discussion on the relationship between the Greek Philosophers and Homer. Then sections on Plato, Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius
2) God and Christian philosophy: starts with the tetragrammaton (YHWH) which rightfully should be Jewish-Christian philosophy as the foundation for Christian metaphysics. Then it is mostly Plotinus/Plato's influence on Augustine and Aquinas
3) the chapter on Modern philosophy follows: Gilson's knowledge of Descartes here comes in full force (Gilson did his doctorate on Descartes) and he uses Aquinas as a foil for Descartes (and Malebranche and Pascal) to deconstruct their concept of God. Spinoza and deism are also examined
4) and finally God and contemporary thought: Kant and Compte feature prominently, then a section dealing with the relationship between science and god and philosophy (taken mostly from Julian Huxley
The entire book is framed by the key insight (or at least what Gilson argues is the key insight) derived from Sacred Scripture, the revelation to Moses from the burning bush concerning God: I AM (YHWY). Gilson interprets this in Thomistic fashion: God is existence itself (his essence is existence).
This to Aquinas and Gilson is the proper root of all Christian (and I suppose Jewish) metaphysics and any deviation from that (Descartes, Malebranch, Spinoza, Pascal, Kant, Compte, Huxley) ends up as dead-ends. The Greeks prior to it were wandering around, poking at the bush but it too the genius insight of the Jews to cement the concept and send metaphysics off in the proper direction.
Some good quotations:
"With Aristotle the Greeks had gained an indisputably rational theology, but lost their religion." (p. 34)
"the God of Saint Thomas was an infinte ocean of existence, the God of Descartes is an infinitely powerful fountain of existence" (p. 87)
"Descartes had been either religiously right and philosophically wrong, or philosophically right and religiously wrong; Spinoza has been wholly right or wholly wrong" (p. 100)
"Spinoza is a Jew who turned 'Him Who Is' into a mere 'That Which Is' and he could love 'that which is' but never expected that he himself would be loved by it" (p. 103)
"Millions of men are starving or bleeding to death because two or three of these pseudoscientific or pseudosocial deified abstractions are now at war" (p. 136)
August 29, 2023
Gilson <3
"I, personally, would not speak lightly of Spinoza's religion. It is a one hundred per cent metaphysically pure answer to the question how to achieve human salvation by means of philosophy only. I am well aware of the fact that what I myself hold as the true religion, Christianity, appeared to him but a piece of childish mythology. But I feel infinitely grateful to him because, after having discarded all positive religion as purely mythological, he did not replace it by a philosophical mythology of his own. Spinoza is a Jew who turned 'Him who is' into a mere 'that which is'; and he could love 'that which is,' but he never expected that he himself would be loved by it. The only way for us to overcome Spinoza is, in a truly Spinozistic way, to free ourselves from his limitation by understanding it as a limitation. This means, to grasp again Being as the existence of essence, not as the essence of existence; to touch it as an act, not to conceive it as a thing. Spinoza's metaphysical experiment is the conclusive demonstration of at least this: That any religious God whose true name is not 'He who is' is nothing but a myth" (p. 103–4).
"One of the most delectable objects of contemplation for the connoisseurs of human silliness is precisely the myth which seems to have haunted so many minds from the middle of the seventeenth century up to the end of the eighteenth. 'Haunted' here is the correct word, for this curious myth was but the philosophical ghost of the Christian God. The Deists..." (p. 104).
"The trouble with so many of our contemporaries is not that they are agnostics but rather that they are misguided theologians. Real agnostics are exceedingly rare, and they harm nobody but themselves. Just as they have no God, these have no gods. Much more common, unfortunately, are those pseudo-agnostics who, because they combine scientific knowledge and social generosity with a complete lack of philosophical culture, substitute dangerous mythologies for the natural theology which they do not understand" (p. 137).
"I, personally, would not speak lightly of Spinoza's religion. It is a one hundred per cent metaphysically pure answer to the question how to achieve human salvation by means of philosophy only. I am well aware of the fact that what I myself hold as the true religion, Christianity, appeared to him but a piece of childish mythology. But I feel infinitely grateful to him because, after having discarded all positive religion as purely mythological, he did not replace it by a philosophical mythology of his own. Spinoza is a Jew who turned 'Him who is' into a mere 'that which is'; and he could love 'that which is,' but he never expected that he himself would be loved by it. The only way for us to overcome Spinoza is, in a truly Spinozistic way, to free ourselves from his limitation by understanding it as a limitation. This means, to grasp again Being as the existence of essence, not as the essence of existence; to touch it as an act, not to conceive it as a thing. Spinoza's metaphysical experiment is the conclusive demonstration of at least this: That any religious God whose true name is not 'He who is' is nothing but a myth" (p. 103–4).
"One of the most delectable objects of contemplation for the connoisseurs of human silliness is precisely the myth which seems to have haunted so many minds from the middle of the seventeenth century up to the end of the eighteenth. 'Haunted' here is the correct word, for this curious myth was but the philosophical ghost of the Christian God. The Deists..." (p. 104).
"The trouble with so many of our contemporaries is not that they are agnostics but rather that they are misguided theologians. Real agnostics are exceedingly rare, and they harm nobody but themselves. Just as they have no God, these have no gods. Much more common, unfortunately, are those pseudo-agnostics who, because they combine scientific knowledge and social generosity with a complete lack of philosophical culture, substitute dangerous mythologies for the natural theology which they do not understand" (p. 137).
April 25, 2015
I am currently studying philosophy at a seminary, and in the throws of this endeavor, it is clear that philosophy has a lot to say about religion. But, I was unclear how religion could enhance ones philosophy with out adopting a divine command theory. This book is the answer to the question "how does religion provide value to philosophy?". Chapter 2 of the book is probably the best chapter of the book in regards to the impact of Judeo-Christian views of philosophy. The rest of the chapters explain the progress that philosophy made in other religions, including Christianity. But, for a clear and robust presentation of the purpose of philosophy and religion and the explanatory power of the two together, this book is the book that you need to read. Especially if you are studying philosophy and feeling as though it is sucking the life out of your faith. Hope you purchase this book and find it beneficial.
July 22, 2019
Gilson montre que seul le thomisme de d'Aquin arrive à réconcilier deux idées : "le principe premier philosophique" (CE qui est, le CE) et "l'environnement personnel" (ce QUI est, le QUI). Dieu est celui dont l'essence est l'existence. Au contraire, les autres philosophes ont privilégié à outrance l'une de ces deux idées : les Grecs (Platon, Aristote, les Stoïciens, les Épicuriens), Descartes, Spinoza.
September 11, 2023
Philosophy on fire. 4.5 stars.
Eager to read more by Gilson now.
Eager to read more by Gilson now.
January 18, 2009
This book is an interesting take on the evolution of the idea of God and philosophical thought. Nothing really groundbreaking here, but draws things together in an interesting fashion.
* Note to those interested, Gilson is a Thomist.
* Note to those interested, Gilson is a Thomist.
March 23, 2017
One of the best, clearest, readable, concise and most insightful books on real Philosophical questions/problems (as opposed to semantico-mental masturbation) and God. Great translation from the French consolidation of Gilson's lectures on the subject.
November 25, 2019
a book which doesn’t seem to understand its own conclusion
This isn't really a book of philosophy, it's a book abdicating the claims of philosophy and reason. I think that's a good thing; that neither philosophy nor science can prove (or disprove) the existence of God should be self-evident as soon as you understand the terms 'philosophy', 'science' and 'God'. At most philosophy can help to clarify the concept of God given one's basic prior beliefs. The idea that only the results of science qualify as genuine knowledge, held by many modern philosophers, is as much a prior belief as the tenets of religion; neither side can prove to the other that it is right, because neither side would accept the premises of the other.
But the odd thing about the book is that Gilson takes some 140 pages to say what I've just said in that paragraph: tracing the development of the God concept from the ancient Greeks, through Aquinas to the rationalists, only to reach Positivism and fall back on the (true but philosophically irrelevant) statement that belief in God is 'quasi instinctive'. Then having abandoned analytical philosophy he doesn't seem to notice he has done it, finishing with a rousing claim that only religious belief can 'keep truth whole'. It can't - see above.
Allowance has to be made for the fact that this wasn't originally composed as a book but as a series of lectures; but still you are left with the impression that Gilson wasn't sure what he was trying to do, and therefore couldn't tell whether he had succeeded.
This isn't really a book of philosophy, it's a book abdicating the claims of philosophy and reason. I think that's a good thing; that neither philosophy nor science can prove (or disprove) the existence of God should be self-evident as soon as you understand the terms 'philosophy', 'science' and 'God'. At most philosophy can help to clarify the concept of God given one's basic prior beliefs. The idea that only the results of science qualify as genuine knowledge, held by many modern philosophers, is as much a prior belief as the tenets of religion; neither side can prove to the other that it is right, because neither side would accept the premises of the other.
But the odd thing about the book is that Gilson takes some 140 pages to say what I've just said in that paragraph: tracing the development of the God concept from the ancient Greeks, through Aquinas to the rationalists, only to reach Positivism and fall back on the (true but philosophically irrelevant) statement that belief in God is 'quasi instinctive'. Then having abandoned analytical philosophy he doesn't seem to notice he has done it, finishing with a rousing claim that only religious belief can 'keep truth whole'. It can't - see above.
Allowance has to be made for the fact that this wasn't originally composed as a book but as a series of lectures; but still you are left with the impression that Gilson wasn't sure what he was trying to do, and therefore couldn't tell whether he had succeeded.
November 24, 2021
This book is a history of metaphysics in four chapters. The first chapter takes you to the limit of ancient metaphysics. It is a good, concise account of what the Greeks achieved and what the Church fathers did with it, and why. Gilson has an engaging way of drawing you into the story of it. The second chapter is about Aristotle and Aquinas. The Thomist account, he argues, is the culmination of natural theology and the climax of metaphysics. For me the most challenging chapter. Then he goes into what Descartes, showing that he presumed rather than inherited, appropriating concepts without care and without history. That was a bad step, but a worse step was that of Kant, yielding scientism. It really is a good, culminating chapter. Gilson turns his essays into stories, and what were originally four lectures into one long story with a tremendous book indicting many things which many others today indict. It is not a difficult book if you are familiar with Greek philosophy through Plotinus, Classical theism, and have some acquaintance with modern philosophy. I remember being astonished that Stephen Hawking based his scientific presuppositions on the philosophy of positivism. Gilson gives you the story that explains how Stephen Hawking is not unusual in doing that. The book is a brisk read of about an hour a chapter and has all kinds of ponderable portions. One to return to and digest more thoroughly.
June 29, 2019
Excellent little book. Gilson's main contention seems to be this: throughout the history of philosophy, there have been two tendencies: (1) to separate the philosophical first principle from the living object of religion (e.g. Platonic Ideas from gods); (2) to approach the study of God in an essentialist manner i.e. to focus on Him as Good, Him as Thought, Him as a Living Thing, etc.
Gilson argues that revelation emphasises God as He Who Is, "I am what I am," God as primarily existence. Because of the difficulty (if not impossibility) of even trying to conceptualize existence, because our usual method of intellection is to judge essences as existing or not, the philosophical tendency has always been to prioritize God as an Essence of some sort.
According to Gilson, Aquinas focusses on God as an Act of existence, focussing on "to be" against "being." Existence is primary, and it is only by being that things are what they are. Gilson says that due to the more-or-less impossibility of conceptualizing this, philosophers have consistently shied away from it and returned to thing-ofying God in some way (He is vs That which is), or in distinguishing again between the philosophical first principle and the object of religion.
Gilson argues that revelation emphasises God as He Who Is, "I am what I am," God as primarily existence. Because of the difficulty (if not impossibility) of even trying to conceptualize existence, because our usual method of intellection is to judge essences as existing or not, the philosophical tendency has always been to prioritize God as an Essence of some sort.
According to Gilson, Aquinas focusses on God as an Act of existence, focussing on "to be" against "being." Existence is primary, and it is only by being that things are what they are. Gilson says that due to the more-or-less impossibility of conceptualizing this, philosophers have consistently shied away from it and returned to thing-ofying God in some way (He is vs That which is), or in distinguishing again between the philosophical first principle and the object of religion.
January 5, 2021
God and Philosophy is a book by Étienne Gilson initially prepared as part of a series of four lectures that he conducted on the metaphysical problem of God. The book is composed of four sections: God and Greek Philosophy, God and Christian Philosophy, God and Modern Philosophy and God and Contemporary thought. Basically, the book consists of extracts from the history of past philosophies, our notion of God, and the demonstration of His existence. It is obvious that as a Thomist, Gilson confidently rests on the assumption that truth can be found, even in metaphysics. The aim and scope of the book are to achieve a clear and precise determination of the metaphysical problem of God. In the preface, Gilson explicitly acknowledges that the only philosopher who made him clearly realize the full metaphysical implications of this problem is Saint Thomas Aquinas.
October 25, 2022
Gilson hammers on his thesis that Christian metaphysics was a net good and even deepening of the greek variety. What I wasn't expecting was his dismantling of contemporary philosophy, every entertaining indeed.
September 15, 2023
I enjoyed this book the most I believe because the author takes the time to explain the reasoning for this book from the early times of Plato to now. The complete progression makes it easier to understand the purpose of this book.,
March 22, 2017
(First read. Plan on multiple read in the future).
Gilson's writing in this slim book (which is based on his lectures) is less severe than his more scholarly publications. He has a fluidity and grace in his writing that made this book a pleasure to read for a novice.
(detailed review appended later)
Gilson's writing in this slim book (which is based on his lectures) is less severe than his more scholarly publications. He has a fluidity and grace in his writing that made this book a pleasure to read for a novice.
(detailed review appended later)
October 25, 2020
This is a brilliant book consisting of four lectures on the conception of God in different philosophical eras: the Greek, the Medieval, the Modern and the Contemporary.
May 21, 2022
An excellent series of lectures on the relationship of religion and philosophy from the time of the ancient Greeks to the twentieth century. Gilson is brilliant as ever.
February 16, 2024
My only complaint about this book actually concerns the formatting and typesetting. On occasion, for those of us with poor eyesight, the text can be difficult to read.
February 25, 2024
4.5 stars. Excellent, first-rate. Gilson has the goods.
June 13, 2025
A helpful and concise introduction to Greek, Christian and modern philosophy.
June 2, 2013
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. The chapter on Greek philosophy could be a bit confusing if you haven't already read into or learned about some of the ideas of, say, Plato. I much more enjoyed the second and third chapters. The Greek philosophy is necessary, though, as a backdrop to the problem of God's existence. I must say, though, that Plato's quote from the Republic about the Idea of Good was eye-opening (without knowing it his description is perfectly in line with the Christian idea of God). Another reason why the chapter on Greek philosophy is necessary is the later connections Gilson makes to it, mostly in the chapter "God and Christian Philosophy."
The third and fourth chapters were probably the best. Perhaps it is by design that each chapter is better than the last. There are some great nuggets of wisdom and insight in this book. There are a great many passages, especially in the chapter entitled "Contemporary Thought" that are written so well that you can't help but think that nobody could have said it better, and I found myself desiring to reread these passages in appreciation of what I just read. Although this chapter, I will admit, seems out of place, it was still a good read and I couldn't agree more with what was said.
Even though the book is fairly old (1941), Gilson's thoughts on science in relation to metaphysical questions is still very applicable (a shame that it is still the same way in modern science as it was 40 years ago). I think somebody on any side of the spectrum, and in between, with relation to their beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God could get something from this book. Of course, for a Christian who enjoys philosophy, as I am, this book was an interesting and fun read to say the least. A Christian philosopher would most likely get more out of this book, but I still think that anyone who enjoys philosophy and wants a good introduction to the topic of God could gain insight from this book. Therefore, I would recommend it to any student of philosophy.
The third and fourth chapters were probably the best. Perhaps it is by design that each chapter is better than the last. There are some great nuggets of wisdom and insight in this book. There are a great many passages, especially in the chapter entitled "Contemporary Thought" that are written so well that you can't help but think that nobody could have said it better, and I found myself desiring to reread these passages in appreciation of what I just read. Although this chapter, I will admit, seems out of place, it was still a good read and I couldn't agree more with what was said.
Even though the book is fairly old (1941), Gilson's thoughts on science in relation to metaphysical questions is still very applicable (a shame that it is still the same way in modern science as it was 40 years ago). I think somebody on any side of the spectrum, and in between, with relation to their beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God could get something from this book. Of course, for a Christian who enjoys philosophy, as I am, this book was an interesting and fun read to say the least. A Christian philosopher would most likely get more out of this book, but I still think that anyone who enjoys philosophy and wants a good introduction to the topic of God could gain insight from this book. Therefore, I would recommend it to any student of philosophy.
April 15, 2016
I really appreciate Gilson's treatise on the necessity of separating metaphysics and science and his insistence that scientists can't (and shouldn't) attempt to solve metaphysical problems. (The difference between asking "how" and "why" as the basis between the science/metaphysics split is also really interesting). His theories on God are also fascinating to read about, but I AM a little wary on his insistence that the true God--"He who is"-- is necessarily the Christian God (and necessarily male). Furthermore, it may have been interesting if he had expanded his purview to include more Eastern religions/philosophies. As it stands, though, this was a really enjoyable read and a nice examination of the various Western philosophical interpretations of God. And if it would be too much to say this book brought me closer to believing in God, then at least I can say it made me disbelieve in God less.
March 26, 2014
I must give this book its due, on one hand the book is small and a relatively quick read, yet do not let the quaint and conciseness of the book let your guard down. This book manages to employ philosophical language in a manner that readers can understand, while tracing the history of God through time in both its religious and philosophical interactions.
One has to appreciate how well the author brings together the God of Religion with the God of the Philosophers in the Catholic-Thomistic Way, by tracing the development of God through Ancient-Pagan, Ancient-Jewish to Medieval, Enlightenment-Modern, to finally the Contemporary-Modern period. I recommend this book for those who are are willing to read the book slowly, and re-read it again, for those especially who are particularly keen on abstract thinking too.
One has to appreciate how well the author brings together the God of Religion with the God of the Philosophers in the Catholic-Thomistic Way, by tracing the development of God through Ancient-Pagan, Ancient-Jewish to Medieval, Enlightenment-Modern, to finally the Contemporary-Modern period. I recommend this book for those who are are willing to read the book slowly, and re-read it again, for those especially who are particularly keen on abstract thinking too.
April 29, 2014
Excellent treatment of the interplay of the philosophical and religious idea of God from the earliest Greeks to contemporary positivism. What makes Gilson in general so great to read is his mastery of the history of philosophy, a quality unfortunately lacking in many philosophers today. This book is no exception, despite its brevity. He offers an interesting narrative about the evolution and de-evolution of the notions of essence and existence in our idea of God. For readers who may complain about the use of these concepts, well, what can one say except to respect Gilson and become a student of the history of philosophy.
June 20, 2013
Really enjoying this little reader by Etienne Gilson. In simple language he goes through the evolution of Christian 'philosophy' with the backbone of Greek philosophical method. As he goes forward he answers the Greek philosophical framework of the 'unknown God' with revealed characteristics like: unicity, simplicity, infinity as the various 'discoveries' arise from revelation. Only someone with Gilson's authority can take such a complicated subject and make it digestible. My only regret is that my french is not good enough to read in the original.
December 21, 2016
Good essay about how the meaning of God has evolved from the Greeks to Christianity to Modern & Contemporary Philosophy. Gilson, a self-confessed Thomist, emphasizes his usual themes. Unfortunately, he ends with very weak argumentation in the last part on Contemporary Philosophy. This may be due to the fact that this was written in 1941 and that a lot of progress has been made in science and understanding of complexity and life since then. It would be interesting to know if Gilson would think differently were he stile alive.
Want to read
December 14, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 20, as one of Ten Books on the Humanities.
August 12, 2014
Great stuff. The last chapter provides a superb discussion of the difference between scientific thinking and religious and metaphysical thought.
August 11, 2013
One of the best books I ever read.
August 29, 2013
Concise, Clear, and Enlightening, Gilson does a masterful job explaining the history of philosophy's conception of God as well as its gradually worsening failure to hit the mark.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews