symbolic Flashcards
1
Q
paul tillich dates
A
1886-1965
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
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.
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
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’
6
Q
Tillich’s theory of participation is that there are four elements to symbolic meaning
A
- point to soemthing beyond itself: crucifix ‘points’ to christianity, religous langauge ‘points’ to religion or god
- 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.
- reality:to be symbolic has to reveal a deeper meaning, they open up spirtual levels of reality that r otherwise closed to us
- soul:symbols open up the levels of dimension of the soul that correspond to those levels of reality
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
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
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
10
Q
paul quote
A
‘the name of this infinite n inexhaustible depth + ground of knowledge is god’
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
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
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
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
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
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
