Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

religious language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic > symbolic > Flashcards

symbolic Flashcards

1
Q

paul tillich dates

A

1886-1965

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

tillich on RL

A
  • religous statements dont give us literally true facts about god
  • theyre symbollic n noncognitive statements
  • they provide us w some degree of understadning about god
  • for him theres a diff between signs n symbols
  • a sign points to soemthing eg red traffi light but a symblo partcipates in that to which it points
  • he says we cannot speak literally of god
  • only statement used of god is that he is ‘ground of being’/’being itself’ the source of everything. all other sentences must be understood symbollically
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

religous symbols

A
  • theyre not arbitrarily invented
  • they grow out of culture n collective unconcious minds of a religous tradition
  • makes religious symbols part of religion
  • Signs merely point but symbols also participate in what they point to.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

tillich eg national flag

A
  • he uses illustration of national flag
  • it isnt a random sign pointing to a country
  • its part of what it points to
  • its partcipates in power and dignity of a nation
  • seeing a flag mentally connects a citizen to their country
  • similarly, funtion of religous symbols is to spirtually connect ppl to religous dimension of reality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

tillich gods a symbol for…

A
  • ‘the ground of being’ or for ‘being-itself’
  • descriptions suggest god is a ‘being’ which puts him in same category as created things
  • who created god+brought him to beings?
  • ‘i am who i am’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Tillich’s theory of participation is that there are four elements to symbolic meaning

A
  1. point to soemthing beyond itself: crucifix ‘points’ to christianity, religous langauge ‘points’ to religion or god
  2. participation: symbolic language particpates in what it points to. crucifix is part of Christianity, it doesn’t j point to it. RL participates in the being of God, or in being-itself.
  3. reality:to be symbolic has to reveal a deeper meaning, they open up spirtual levels of reality that r otherwise closed to us
  4. soul:symbols open up the levels of dimension of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

tillich diff approach to VN n analogy

A
  • we have come to know the ‘ground of being’ through symbols
  • RL points to christianity n so becomes a bridge for r soul to connect to god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

strength

it side-steps the meaning-issue of our human inability to understand God

A
  • does this by suggesting RL=symbloic which points to god, particpates in god, opens up spirtual levels of reality which connect dimensions of r soul
  • essentially RL functions as kind of RE which connects human souls to god w/out their neeing to understand god
  • RL is meaningful insofar as it partipates in being of god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

religous symbols
alpha n omega

A
  • 1st n last letters of alphabet
  • use to designate comprehenssiveness of god, implying that god incls all that can be
  • NT revelation to jogn
  • used as self designated of god n christ
  • “i am alpha+omega,1st n last, beginning +end” rev 22:13
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

paul quote

A

‘the name of this infinite n inexhaustible depth + ground of knowledge is god’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Weakness: William Alston objects that religious language must involve facts

A
  • he argues that important christian doctorines like heaven n hell have to be taken as factual, not symbolic
  • he claims **‘theres no point trying to determine whether the statement is true/false’ **
  • religion=concerned w objective factual things such as r salvation n afterlife
  • in that case, RL cannot merely be symbolic
  • J Hick makes similar point add that philosophical language about god such as god being non-dependent (necessary) isnt symbolic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

evaluation defending tillich against alston

A
  • religions primarly a human impulse rowards soemthing higher than limits of r scientific/philosphical reasoning
  • religion is primarly about r ‘ultimate concern’ which isnt anything historical,scientific or factual
  • he is therefore right to refocus christianity towards spirtual aspect of human life.
  • its about surrending to r need for spirtual fulfilment
  • RL doesnt need to be literal/factural to be spirtually fulfilling
  • it only needs to participate in being-itself +thereby bridge r souls to r own participation in it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluation criticizing tillich
alston n hick again

A
  • their critique is succseful as it shows tillich goes to far in reducing almost all RL to symbols
  • RL is only sometimes symbloic
  • factual belief in heaven n hell is j as important to christian believers as spirtual experinece gained from using religious symbolic language
  • his approach fails to capture the cognitive element of RL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Issues around the subjectivity of symbols and ‘participation’

Tillich seems to solve the problem of religious language.

A
  • he solves difficulty of meaningfully talking about god thats beyond r understanding
  • RL functions as sort of spirtual/RE which connects human souls to god
  • we dont need to understand god to be connected to god
  • RL is meaningful insofar as it participates in being-itself eg in god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Issues around the subjectivity of symbols and ‘participation’

The issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’

A
  • hick agrues Ps flag illustration doenst adequately explain how participation works
  • unclear how flag particpates in power n dignity of nation
  • unclear whether religous symbols r supposed to particpate in ground of being (god) in same way
  • its a traditional religous doctorine theres a connection between god n nature. some sense world is already thought to particpate in god already=unclear how way symbols particpate in being of god is diff to way everything else alr does
  • unclear how symbols particpate in higher spirtual levels of reality they soemhow connect us to
  • hicks issue can be developed into boarder concern about subjectivity of symbols
  • particpation n connection=vague=subjective
  • symbolic meaning could j be in r minds, might not connect
  • paul reduces god n religion to human feelings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The issue of the subjectivity and vagueness of ‘participation’

evaluation defending tillich against hick
its objective not subjective

A
  • unsuccesful bc P doesnt think his theory makes RL completely subjective bc its connected to the objective
  • “The term ‘ultimate concern’ united the subjective and the objective side of the act of faith.”
  • hes saying the faith is directed towards soemthing objective such as god or ground of being
  • whne use symbolic religous terms we express r personal subjective faith
  • also make an objective act of faith via r souls connecting to spirtual levels of reality
17
Q

Issues around the subjectivity of symbols and ‘participation’

COUNTERPOINT:
Evaluation criticising Tillich

A
  • the critique of tillich=succesful
  • spirtual experinces where person loses their sense of subjective self=possible
  • but theyre still j happening inside subjective experinece
  • his theory can be criticised like religous experience- as purely subjective
  • personal subjective experience cannot be a basis for shared intersubjective meaning in RL
18
Q

paul edwards criticsm

A

argues that symbols are meaningless because they cannot be verified or falsified thanks to their subjective nature: “it doesn’t convey any facts”

19
Q

John Macquarrie theory on symbols

A
  • he disagrees w tillichs use of term symbol saying its inconsistent w current english usage n so misleading n unhelpful
  • we may say ‘clouds=sign of rain’ which=example of how sign can have intrinsic connection w what it signifies in contradiction to tillichs claim this is the function of symbol not a sign
  • maths symbols=chosen arbitrarily, w/out “participation in” or obvious connection w, what they stand for.
  • conventional symbol: no connection to what it symbolises other than that some ppl have arbitrarily agreed to let it stand for this particular symbolizandum
  • intrinsic symbol: has in itself a kinship w what it symbolises
20
Q

macquarrie:
existential response + similarity of relation

A
  • whereby he said that symbols + signs link to human existence.
  • eg, water cleanses us, so water is often used symbolically to be seen as cleansing (baptism, for example).
  • he also argued for the similarity of relation, which is basically the use of analogy; shepherds look after sheep just like God looks after us.
21
Q

j.h randall and symbols as non-cognitive

ICE I=inspire C=clarify E=express emotions

A
  • he agrees w tillich, calling RL symbolic n non-cog (cannot be proven)
  • he argues that religous language does 4 things:
    1. arouses emotion and makes people act
    1. stimulates and inspires community action
    1. allows someone to express experiences non-literally
    1. clarifies our experience of God
  • he uses analogy between power of music, art n poetry to affect us+RL functions similarly
  • symbols shouldnt be understood as symbolising some external thing but should be understood by what they do, by their ‘function’
22
Q

randall vs tillich

A
  • randall=more succesfull
  • randall views symbols as completely subjective in r mind+so non-cog
  • tillich stuck w impossible difficulty of explaining how he could possibly know symbloic language has spirtual power he thinks it does
  • by accepting symbols=subjective n dont have mysterious power extending beyond r subjective minds=R is better n still has the strengths of tillichs
23
Q

randall weakness

non-cognitivism is non-traditional

A
  • hes left w issue that non-cog RL cannot express factual objective true statements
  • traditional theologians wouldnt accept that fundamental starting point but, they would argue religion actually is about much more than human experience, its about reality n so RL must be cognitive
24
Q

evaluation defending randall:
nontradtional doesnt mean wrong

A
  • randall n tillich r part of a protestant movement in theology which was influenced by schleiermacher to think religion is primarly about human experience, whereas doctorines, dogmas n beliefs r secondary in importance
  • theologians who followed this view became attracted to existentialism (R+T both influenced by this)
  • t thinks religous meaning isnt purely subjective whereas R thinks it is
  • conclude: its the religous meaning of n in human experince that is most important for a theory of RL to capture

religious language: Negative, Analogical or Symbolic (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions