symbols/religious language Flashcards
symbols/religious language (12)
(1) non-cog/symbolic language (general)
(2) tillich + tillich’s 6 characteristics
(3) randall + randall’s signs vs symbols
(4) 4 functions of symbolic language
(5) strengths of SL
(6) weaknesses of SL
(7) non-cog/mythological language (general)
(8) purpose, biblical support for myth lang
(9) bultmann’s view + scholarly criticisms
(10) challenges to myth
(11) theories: correspondence, coherence, language game
(12) strengths/weaknesses of LGT
(1) non-cog/symbolic language (general)
- ‘sumballo‘/to throw together; metaphors/symbols to understand (picture, myths, actions)
- cross (christianity), flags (national identity), lingam (shiva)
(2) tillich + tillich’s 6 characteristics
- T> faith as state of being ‘ultimately concerned’; symbols clarify God, even without literal assertions
- (characteristics): transcend facts, are in reality of what they present, can’t be produced intentionally, are fluid and changing
- arbitrary representations (e.g. green on traffic light)
- point beyond themselves, refer to world
- can begin as signs/arbitrary and become symbols (dove for peace)
(3) randall + randall’s signs vs symbols
- 1958; R> symbols unified, gave identity, shared values
- R> science+religion to develop simultaneously
- cog vs non-cog symbols; (sciences vs arts/religion); motivators (religious symbols disclose/reveal; distinguishes them from other symbols)
(4) 4 functions of symbolic language
- (4) motivate, social, communicative, disclosive
(5) strengths of SL
- superior communication vs RL/A; solves univocal/equivocal lang; evokes participation; insight not found in literal/cognitive lang
- (ward, williams, ramsey, mcfague, donovan)
(6) weaknesses of SL
- derived from non-cog lang; isn’t v/f = meaningless; lacks empiricism; if relative/fluid, how valuable; universal, but culturally determined/less reputable (alston, macquarrie, edwards)
(7) non-cog/mythological language (general)
- form of SL; imagery/symbolism (analogies, metaphors); universal, non-cog interpretation; explored religious concepts
- ‘a myth is a story of origin’ (peters)
(8) purpose, biblical support for myth lang
- communicates/conveys; cross-cultural/universal; multi-generational capacity; emotional/psychological concepts (vardy, eliade, peters)
- biblical: noah flood; virgin birth; ramayana; puranas
- freud, tillich, hoffman, barbour, morrison, plantiga
(9) bultmann’s view + scholarly criticisms
- 1884, theologian; >all scripture myths removed, leftover essence used (‘demythologisation’)
- strauss, wette, miller, dawkins (‘god delusion’), hick (‘myth of god incarnate’), burrows
(10) challenges to myth
- not completely universal; superior forms of RL; relative/subj = unreliable
- incompatible with science; no criteria consensus
(11) theories: correspondence, coherence, language game
- CSP: realist, true/meaningful by relationship with external world (empiricist, like v/f)
- CHT: anti-realist, truth determined by interpretation from group/group consensus
- LGT: wittgenstein philosopher, post-modern; how words are used, not words themselves; non-cog
(12) strengths/weaknesses of LGT
- S: explore religious concepts; accessible; provided initial value irrespective; mutual respect (donovan, phillips, vardy)
- W: lacks empiricism; exclusive, explanation of lang has to be given in a lang; inflexible, subj; G has no objective meaning, so valid dialogue can’t be made (rhees, howard, ashley)
