7334578
| Question | Answer |
| What does symbolic language include? | - metaphors - similes - signs - myths |
| What does a symbol do? | points to the concept that they are conveying and participates in some way the meaning of the concept |
| What can symbols be like? | pictorial, abstract, verbal or active (e.g. baptism) |
| Who fathers this theory? | Paul Tillich (1886-1965) |
| From an extract of his book "the nature of religious language" what does he explain? | How symbol can be used to speak meaningfully of God |
| How can we think of this extract (as modified by Mrs Steele)? | As 5 steps |
| What is step 1? | is it a sign or symbol? a sign simply points to something a symbol goes beyond that and participates in the thing (e.g. poppy and remembrance day) |
| What example does Tillich give to explain a symbol and a sign? | he says a symbol is like a flag which conveys nationalism/patriotism, it is more than a sign that conveys informations he says a sign is like words and it is possible to talk purely of signs |
| What does he say about the words used in poetical and liturgical language? | for centuries they have gone past simply pointing to a meaning, they participate in the reality that they represent and therefore the language is symbolic |
| What is step 2? | the function of symbols: He says they open up levels of reality and the soul they grow out of a collective unconscious and cannot be invented unless the collective unconscious embrace it he says symbols can die |
| What is step 3? | The nature of religious symbols: they do the same as symbols i.e. open up hidden level of reality. they open up the ultimate reality (the holy) he warns against confusing the symbols of the holy with the holy itself. |
| What is step 4? | Transcendent and Immanent levels: everything we say bout God is symbolic about from saying he is the ultimate reality. We do not have a choice but to symbolise when talking about God Claims qualities and acts of God cannot be taken literally |
| What is step 5? | The Truth of Religious Symbols : he identifies positives and negatives symbols only die if the situation in which they are used changes; "their truth us their adequacy to the religious situation in which they are created, and their inadequacy to another situation is their untruth" |
| What conclusion can we draw from this? | religion is ambiguous and every religious symbol may become idolatrous, it may elevate itself to ultimate validity although nothing is ultimate itself, no religious doctrine and no religious ritual may be" |
| What does he say about the Christian Cross? | the cross identifies for the believer the death of Jesus, but does more, it participates in it by bringing to the believers consciousness what Jesus' death signifies e.g. |
| What can be said about symbols on a universal scale? | The theory is good because symbols are universal/can be universalised |
| What does it remind us of when talking about God? | The danger of anthropomorphising God |
| What does this theory capture? | the mystery and transcendence of God by taking a symbolic view of religious statements |
| What does this overcome | revelatory problems of the Bible |
| Why is this theory good? | it is accessible for all religions and so is a pluralist theory |
| What can be said about the non-literal nature of symbols? | if they are not literally true what value do they have? How would a fundamentalist Christian react? |
| What can symbols become the focus of? | Worship. they can become trivialised and their original meaning lost e.g. the creation story |
| How does John Macquarrie criticise Tillich? | (he advocates symbolism) but suggests that there is no difference between a symbol and a sign. e.g. the clouds are a sign of rain, they are sign and symbol we cannot differentiate |
| What does MacQuarrie propose instead? | the existential response: whereby he said that symbols and signs link to human existence e.g. water cleanses us so water is often used symbolically to be seen as cleaning similarity of relation: which is basically the use of analogy |
| How does Hick criticise symbol? | says the idea of participation isn't clear and argues there isn't much difference between a symbol and a sign |
| How does William Alston criticise symbol? | argues that symbols are meaningless because we don't know whether they are true or not |
| How does Paul Edwards criticise symbol? | argues that symbols are meaningless because they cannot be verified or falsified |
| How does Randall criticise symbol? | argues against the idea that religious symbols are cognitive, he thinks they are non-cognitive and non-representative. e.g. he sees music cannot be expressed in any other way. But for Randall God is not a transcendent reality rather an intellectual symbol for what we think we need |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.