Symbolic Language

• Hicks criticism of Tillich's symbolism

  Hick questions what Tillich means by ‘participates in’. For example, ‘God is good’ – is the whole sentence the symbol or the underlying concept of the goodness of God?
• Tillich's cognitivism

  Tillich considered religious language to be cognitive (saying something true) because it expressed something about the ultimate, true reality (God).
• J.H Randall's non-cognitivism


  Randall suggests that symbols are non-cognitive and have no objective reality; much like music or art touches emotions that cannot be reached in other ways. Religion thus performs a valuable cultural function but is simply a human endeavour.
• Randall: ‘The cultural functions of religion and of science are so different that it is difficult to see how (...) they can seriously compete. Both functions are clearly indispensable’ 
• Symbolic language preserves the mystery of God and the sense that God is beyond words, so avoids anthropomorphism, while communicating something deeper than words themselves.
• Symbolic language at least allows us to say something unlike the apophatic way. The fact that symbolic language changes over time can be an advantage because it can remain culture relevant.
• Tillich seems to have considered religious language to be cognitive because it expressed something about the ultimate, the true reality.
• Hick questions these ideas - what is meant by 'participates in'. For example 'God is good' - is the whole sentence the symbol or the underlying concept of the goodness of God
• Symbolic language is open to interpretation and change, even losing meaning over time. J.H. Randall suggests instead that symbols are non-cognitive and have no objective reality; much like music or art touches emotions that cannot be reached. Religion thus performs a valuable cultural function but it is simply a human endeavour
• Symbolic language - participates in that which it points so unlocks something deep within us that connects with the ultimate concern or reality. A flag for example does not merely point towards a nation but represents the nation involved. It adds to the meaning of the nation.
• Tillich said we cannot speak literally of God. He is not a part of the empirical world. The only statement that can be made non-symbolically is that God is the 'Ground of Being', the source of everything.
• Tillich said that the symbols we ascribe to God cannot be random or invented. He follows on from Jung and says that they may emerge out of collective consciousness.
• Symbols may have a limited life-span. They evolve and change over time. For example the Swastika or Irminsul.
• "Every symbol is double-edged. It opens up reality, and it opens up the soul" - Paul Tillich.
• The claim that symbols engage us on a deeper level can really only be certainly said for the arts. Tillich assumes a connection between religion and the aesthetic.