tilich's cataphatic way (symbolism)
using symbolism helps us to make positive claims about God while avoiding making Him seem too small coz of normal human language
religious ppl may use language symbolically when discussing relationships with God eg God ‘listened’ to their prayers, but God has no body n therefore can’t actually listen
paul tilich:
christian existentialist, part of movement to prove Christianity’s relevance in post-war society
thought that metaphors n symbols help us to understand God n religious experiences better » inc visual images, rituals, stories n ideas
language used is accessible to us but points beyond itself, towards ultimate reality ie God
he differentiates between signs n symbols » as long as meaning is agreed on, sign’s form doesn’t matter
symbols are something we can all participate in
eg a flag » humans participate in the feeling of unity, surrounding certain national flags
believed that God was ‘the ground of all being’
argued that symbols can change n die out due to culture
eg: in the past, Jewish people used to sacrifice lambs » Jesus seen as lamb of God, but meaning lost as time went on
theory of participation:
“a symbol participates in that which it points to, and a religious symbols points towards God” (tilich)
they point to something beyond themselves
they participate in that to which they point to
they open up levels of reality usually closed to us
they open up dimensions of the soul
“man’s ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically, because symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate.” (tilich)
proponents of tilich n symbolism:
JH randall:
“the cultural functions of religion and science are so different that it is difficult to see how,,,they can seriously compete. both functions are clearly indispensable.”
calls religious language symbolic n non-cognitive
argued that religious language does the following:
arouses emotion n makes ppl act
stimulates n inspires community action
allows someone to express experiences non-literally
clarifies our experience of God
critics of tilich n symbolism:
john hick:
called tilich’s idea of participating unclear
argued there is little difference between a symbol n sign
william alston:
argued that important Christian doctrines eg heaven n hell = factual not symbolic
claimed that “there is no point trying to determine whether the statement is true or false”
religion is concerned with objective factual things eg salvation n afterlife
∴religious lang can’t merely be symbolic
paul edwards:
argued that symbols are meaningless as they can’t be verified or falsified thanks to subjectivity
“it doesn’t convey any facts.”