Symbolic Language Flashcards
(8 cards)
Who was Paul Tillich?
A Christian Philosopher (1900s)
What did Tillich believe about symbolic language?
-Tillich believed that religious language must be understood symbolically because literal language fails to capture the reality of God, who he described as “Being-itself”
-He distinguished between signs (which merely point) and symbols (which participate in the reality they represent)
-For Tillich, a symbol is “self-transcending”—it means something in itself, but also points beyond itself to a greater reality. Religious symbols are distinct from signs because they actively participate in the power of what they represent. For instance, the crucifix in Christianity does not just refer to the historical death of Jesus; it symbolises God’s sacrificial love and evokes a personal, transformative response in the believer
-Tillich believed that such symbols “open up levels of reality which would otherwise be closed to us” and simultaneously awaken a deeper dimension within the soul.
Was Tillich’s approach cognitive or non cognitive?
-This is clearly a non-cognitive view, as it avoids any claim about factual or scientific truth. Biblical support for this symbolic depth can be found in Acts: “For in him we live and move and have our being”
-This verse aligns with Tillich’s view that God is not a being among beings but the ground of all being, and can only be approached through deeply meaningful symbols shaped by experience and worship
What did Tillich believe a strength of symbolic language was?
-Tillich also believed symbolic language is necessary to preserve the mystery and seriousness of faith. If we try to speak of God literally, we end up either saying nothing meaningful or reducing God to something finite and explainable—what he called the “objectification” of God
-In contrast, symbolic language avoids this by expressing what Tillich described as a person’s “ultimate concern”—the central commitment that shapes their entire life.
Would Tillich believe the saying “God is love” is literal?
-no
-For example, when a believer says “God is love,” they are not making a literal, verifiable claim, but expressing their belief in a divine reality that sustains and transforms life through love. This allows the statement to function meaningfully without needing to be factually descriptive
-Symbols like Holy Communion or baptism are not merely ritual acts; they participate in God, and through them, the believer encounters the sacred
-Therefore, Tillich’s symbolic framework avoids the limitations of literalism while preserving the power of religious language to express profound existential truths that give faith meaning, purpose, and relevance.
How might the ideas of symbolic language be too vague?
-John Hick criticised Tillich’s idea of symbols “participating” in the reality they represent as unclear and difficult to apply. He argued that there is “little difference between a symbol and a sign,” undermining Tillich’s central claim that symbols access deeper truths
-Hick also pointed out that many religious claims, such as the Design or Cosmological arguments, arise from conscious intellectual reasoning—not unconscious symbolic reflection. This challenges Tillich’s idea that symbols grow from the unconscious
-For example, the argument from design clearly intends to be a rational justification for belief in God, not just a symbolic expression. If religious language can be understood intellectually, reducing it to symbolic function may diminish its rational value
How did Paul Edward criticise Paul Tillich’s theory?
-Logical positivist Paul Edwards harshly criticised Tillich’s symbolic theory, arguing that symbols are meaningless because “they cannot be verified or falsified”
-He claimed that symbols do not “convey any facts,” making them subjective and unverifiable.
-From Edwards’ perspective, unless religious statements can be tested or confirmed, they are no more meaningful than poetic metaphors or emotional expressions
This criticism targets Tillich’s anti-literalism, suggesting that symbolic language may feel meaningful to believers, but fails to offer anything objective or informative about reality. For those who seek clarity, this blurs the line between truth and personal interpretation.
How does Paul Tillich’s symbolic language concept misrepresent traditional Christian beliefs?
-Another key weakness of Tillich’s view is that his idea of God as “being-itself” contradicts traditional Christian theology
-Many Christians believe in a personal, transcendent God—a being who exists apart from the universe, not as the foundation of all being
-Tillich’s abstract view risks emptying religious belief of its relational core, where God is a loving, interactive presence rather than an impersonal ground of existence
-As the Bible affirms in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—indicating a God who acts intentionally and exists before and beyond creation, not merely within it
-For believers, the idea that God is not a “being” but “being-itself” can feel detached and overly philosophical, failing to reflect the God who answers prayer, performs miracles, and engages with humanity
