evaluation of Tillich’s theory

what is a strength of his theory?

Tillich is usccessful in capturing the spiritual side of RL - When a Christian looks at a crucifix or prays , they can have deep spiritual feelings - the most important element of RL is the spiritual feelings it evokes not cold factual beliefs - Tillich’s theory encapsulates this

what is William Alston objection against Tillich?

Alston argues that important Christian doctrines like heaven and he’ll have to be taken as factual not as symbolic - he claims ‘there is no pont trying to determine whether the statement is true or false’

Why is this the case?

Religion is concerned with objective factual things such as salvation and the afterlife

what point does John Hick make?

He makes a similar point to Alston and adds that philosophical language about God, such as God being non-dependent (necessary) is not symbolic

What does Tillich not take into account?

Christians tend to think that when using religious language, they express beliefs about God which can be true or false - cognitivism is a key element of religious meaning dor many Christians , Tillich fails for not adequately accounting for the cognitive element of RL

What is a point to defend Tillich?

Religion is primarily a human impulse towards something higher than the limits of our scientific or philosophical reasoning , religion is primarily about our ‘ultimate concern’ - he is right to refocus Christianity towards the spiritual aspect of human life

How is Alston’s and Hick’s critique succesful?

It shows that Tillich goes too far in reducing almost all religions lamguage to symbols - RL is only sometimes symbolic. Factual belief in heaven and hell is just as impirtsny to Christian believers as the spiritual experience gained from using religious symbolic language

how does Tillich seem ot solve the problem of religious language?

RL functions as a sort of spiritual experience which connects human souls to God. We don’t need to understand God to be connected to God.

what does Hick argue?

Tillich’s flag illustration doesn’t adequately explain how participation works - it isn’t clear how a flag participates in the power and dignity of a nation. It’s not clear whether religious symbols are supposed to participate in the ground of being (God) in the same way

How can Hick’s issue be developed into a broader concern about the subjectivity of symbols?

Participation and connection is too vague which suggests it is subjective - symbolic meaning could merely be in our mind. Symbols might no connect us to anything beyond or above ourselves

How can we defend Tillich from this point?

Tillich doesn’t think hsi theoty makes religious language completely subjective, because it is connected to the objective:

‘The term ‘ultimate concern’ United the subjective and the objective side of the act of faith’

Tillich is saying that faith is directed towsrds something objective, suvh as God or the ground of being