Etienne Gilson Book "God and Philosophy" Review Assignment

God and Philosophy
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Date:
Introduction
For most people it is easy to relate with the debate about God and the philosophies that are related to disapproving the same. This is one the oldest debates that most of the people that follow the Abrahamic faiths can identify with along with atheists. For ages the different factions have tried to bring about an argument that largely mimics their views. For the religious faithful, God exists and is the creator of all things, while the philosophers argue for the idea that it is hard for the believers to prove the same. Muslims, Jews like Christians among other religions factions that have a belief that involves a deity, they have at one point or another been faced with the debate where they have to give prove of their God. This is a classic argument that has for some time been characterized by a canon of debates, arguments and counter arguments (Gilson, 1949). There have been quite a number of arguments that have been brought forth over the course of the classical debates. One of the main debates relates to the idea that, the belief in a God is largely based on self-interests and the most rational thing to do as humans. This is also based on the consequences of believing in a God or not believing in one. Ideally, if there is a God, then we will be rewarded in heaven and if there is not a God, then there is nothing to lose after all it does not change the elemental existence of life and death. The argument further indicates that, if there is a God, there is likelihood of wrongdoers suffering in hell, while if God does not exist, there is nothing to lose either.
It much more preferable for God to exist and we receive a reward in heaven than if God exists and we receive punishment in hell. It thus in our self-interests that God exists, as the argument suggests. This argument is largely referred to as the Pascal argument. One other common argument relates to the aspect of proving that God exists using abstract reasoning. This is referred to as the ontological argument. This is to mean that, the argument has to begin with the explication of the concept of God. The concept of God is aligned with the idea that He is a perfect being, which implies that God is a symbol of perfection. The fact that, the argument is laid on a perfect God who is perfect indicates that, the subject of discussion in this case is in existence. It is not possible to describe something that does not exist. The perfection is part of the concept of God, which also indicates existence. To speak of a God that is perfect and one that is associated with the concept of God and then argue that He does not exist, would ideally be ridiculing the process of abstract reasoning. It is not possible to describe something that does not exist. The cosmological argument on the other hand relates to the existence of the universe and what keeps it in place. This means that theory tries to explain the reason for the existence of the universe (Gilson, 1949). This assuming that it must have come into being in some way and there must have been a cause for its existence. This further relates to the other beings that are in existence, as the argument tries to bring the idea that they much have come into being through some form divine intervention such as that of God. In terms of temporal aspects, the argument cites that the past must be finite. In which case the beginning must have been triggered by something. In light of the teleological argument, there is too much order in the universe, with extreme complexities for it not have been created or brought into being by a force greater than the rest of the universe. This relative to the fact that, planets like the earth have just the conditions and complex systems that support life. These are all elements that cannot be in existence without having been created in some way. The argument based on the religious experience largely cites elements of having experienced God in an indirect manner. This can be an element of having religious persons explain to non-religious how they have experienced God in their lives. This further resonates with the argument from miracles, which explains the presence of God through the occurrence of miraculous events.
Etienne Gilson
One of the books that illuminates on the elements of God as well as philosophy with an in depth look and how the two interact in the society is the God and Philosophy by Etienne Gilson. His full names are Etienne Henry Gilson and was born in the year 1884 on June the 13th and lived till 1978 on September 19th in France. During his time, he made several accomplishment in the field of history and philosophy. It is for this reason that he is considered as one most eminent philosopher, historian and international scholar of the 20th century. Born to a Roman Catholic family, Gilson had much of his early education through the catholic schools in Paris. In 1906, his received his baccalaureate degree in philosophy from the University of Paris (Gilson, 1949). He later on taught philosophy in a various Lycées Henri IV, after which he received his doctoral degree, after researching in depth about scholasticism and Rene Descartes, which led him to delve into medieval thoughts. In 1919, he became a professor at the University of Strasbourg in history of philosophy. Later in professional career, he came to profess that he was a disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas, while still admitting to the fact that his understanding of Aquinas’s thoughts underwent some significant development.
God and philosophy
For philosophy and history students God and Philosophy makes one of the most interesting reads. It brings out some of the most intriguing elements of God and the concept around the belief through the ages. In 144 pages, Gilson brings out timeless highlights with a touch of a historian philosopher, within four sections of the book namely, God and Greek Philosophy, God and Christian Philosophy, God and Modern Philosophy as well as God and Contemporary Thought. The book offers insight into the series of lectures that were given at the Indiana University in the 1930s on philosophy (Gilson, 1949).
Gilson had been specializing on the thoughts of the likes of Descartes and ideally in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas. From the for sections of the book, Gilson is able to bring out the main question that had been on the minds of most of the people during the medieval times and one that still lingers in most people’s minds. It is a problem that presented a metaphysical problem of God and the existence questions. Having been a thomist himself, Gilson brought one of the major aspects that is notable in most of the text; separating the element of God and the existence. This way the two elements can be handled with some aspect of certainty and reduce the complexity surrounding the issue. As such, his approach is aligned with the notion of God, or what would be referred to as the concept of God and then there is the element of demonstrating the existence of God. In order for Gilson to be in a position to bring out the various elements of the two approaches, he uses a rather ingenious methods but one that would easily be associated with his profession, research analysis. Due to the fact that he was a historian on medieval history, he uses the tests and references from the past philosophies, gathering the data and coming up with the right solution to the problem, while essentially pointing out to the problems of the various philosophies. There is an element that comes out relative to the modern philosophies on the same topic and across most other topics (Gilson, 1949). There is a chaotic approach to most of the contemporary philosophies and it is not because the modern thinkers do not have the right level of skills, but rather it is due to the fact that they have lost the fundamental knowledge on the principles, under which any philosophical knowledge can be applied or established. A closer review of the lectures reveals the incline on the idea that truth can actually be found even though related to metaphysics.
As Gilson points out, there is an elemental aspect that is associated with the first principle which was used by the Greeks and it relates to the fact that, all of the things that are into being have all come and will return to the water. At the same time, all of the things are fully of the gods of the Greeks. This was a crucial starting point for the Greeks in evaluating any of the things that they found in nature and they felt that, once something comes to the end of its cycle, it will return to the waters. Due to the idea that all of the things are of god, there is an intricate aspects which they designate, with the names of the gods pointing to living powers or forces and have a will of their own, to impact the human lives, with the help of the powers coming from above (Gilson, 1949). This means that at all times, relative to the fact that the gods are in-control of whatever is in nature, they can use it to control the humans in whatever way that they feel like and desire. Gilson points out one of Plato’s concepts in which he stated that, an idea is something that is truly immutable, immaterial, necessary, exists, eternal and intelligible. This is tied to one of the ideas that was considered to be a dominant one and it is; the idea of good. Idea of good is taken to be the ultimate idea. According to Plato, there is always a constant change on the material reality and therefore the truth can always and only come from a realm of ideas that are timeless and external. The aspect of the Good idea is embedded in that of the concept of God. It is an aspect that largely indicates the existence of God. The Christian God is a symbol of the idea of good, which means that the good would not exist without God. At the same time, God is good and thus embodies the Idea of Good. Like Plato states, the concept of good and thus that of God is eternal, immutable, necessary, immaterial and intelligible (Gilson, 1949). Gilson actually agrees with the idea that Plato brings forth on the idea of good and the fact that the definition of good only resembles that the Christian God. However, according to Gilson, he is quick to point out that, the gods that Plato envisioned in his thoughts, were largely inferior to the realm of ideas. This is an element that is quite crucial to note relative to Plato’s viewpoints. In light of the fact that, Plato did not p...