rl as symbolic

• who comments on religious language as symbolic?

  Paul Tillich
• what does Tillich argue?

  that people can communicate about religious experiences using metaphors and symbols
• what is the "symbolic view"?

  that religious language can point to a reality, without actually describing it
• what does it direct people to?

  beyond the surface level meaning
• religious symbols open up what?

  "levels of reality which otherwise were closed to us"
• according to Tillich's account, what are the 4 main features of symbols?


  1 - symbols point to a reality beyond themselves

  2 - they "participate" in the power to which they point

  3 - they open up levels of reality which would otherwise be closed to us

  4 - at the same time, they open up levels of the soul which correspond to those realities
• what are symbols different to?

  signs
• what is a sign?

  something that informs someone, it has no power attached to it and no bigger meaning (= arbitrary)
• a sign is a conventional way of using an image or word to point to something other than itself
• what is an example of a sign?

  a road sign or traffic lights - it points to something
• however, what does a symbol do?

  goes further and actively participates in what it points towards
• what is an example of a symbol?

  a flag
• how is a flag a symbol?


  it doesn't merely act as a sign, for many it represents the nation (participates in the power and dignity of that country)
• why does Tillich draw an analogy?


  to explain that symbols open up levels of reality that would otherwise be closed to us
• His analogy is of art, explain it:


  like art, symbols enable us to grasp deep truths about the world and ourselves
• Tillich believes that we cannot speak literally of God, why?


  because God is not part of the empirical world and thus cannot be represented by literal language
• what is the only statement that can be used of God?


  that "God is the ground of all being"
• rather than a being, what is God?

  "being-itself" (the source of everything)
• therefore, why can language about God NOT be literal?

  as human language is insufficient for him
• God is our "ultimate concern" what does this mean for a religious believer?


  God demands total attention and commitment, covering all other aspects of life
• a symbol is "self-transcending" what does this mean?


  it means something in itself , but also points beyond itself to some higher or greater reality
• for example, for those who consume the bread and wine in holy communion...?

  the significance of that experience can transcend the physical experience of eating and drinking
• (s) what can symbolic language relate?

  religious ideas to ordinary/ everyday experiences e.g. love
• (s) it allows us to make only one literal statement about what we mean when we speak of God, what is this?

  that God is "being-itself"
• (s) how is this a strength?

  God isn't a being who exists within this universe, so we don't have to try and say something meaningful about such a being (e.g. through analogy)
• (s) it reflects what is known through religious experience, through which what can we do?

  gain insight into issues that are central to our lives
• (s) such as what?

  guilt, sin, love, redemption etc
• (s) how are these understood?

  in an existential sense: they tell us something about the meaning of our lives
• (w) what does Hick reject?


  Tillich's view that a symbol "participates" in the reality to which it points
• (w) what does Hick complain?

  that Tillich doesn't clarify what this means
• (w) Hick also disputes Tillich's view that...?

  symbols arise from the unconscious mind
• (w) why?

  many of the important things that we want to say about God (e.g. design argument) arise from the conscious brains of philosophers