Discuss critically the use of symbol as a means of expressing ideas about God. (40 marks)

Discuss critically the use of symbol as a means of expressing ideas about God. (40 marks)

Symbolism can be used as a method of representing something by using a word or other kinds of illustration to stand for something else and to shed light on its meaning. Symbolism is frequently used with in religion to illustrate a message to its members. For example, in Christianity the alpha and the omega are used to represent the fact that Jesus has no end or beginning. Similarly, a non-religious symbol is the US flag which is associated with passionate feelings leading some to salute it and others to burn it. Tillich argues that there is a difference between a symbol and a sign. He argues that symbols have a deeper meaning whereas signs are arbitrary representations of something. For example, the “Stop” sign means stop. In this essay I will endeavour to show that symbol can be used as a means of expressing ideas about God. I will use scholars such as Tillich and J.H. Randall to support the question. I will also be testing the extent to which analogy and via negativa can also be used to express ideas about God.

The main scholar for religious language as symbolic is Tillich, a protestant theologian. His basic argument was that all religious language is symbolic and cannot be taken as literal assertions about the world. Religious words, actions, objects and events may all be interpreted symbolically. Tillich argues that symbols themselves are independent of empirical criticism. In his book Systematic Theology, he writes, “You cannot kill a symbol by criticism in terms of scientific and historical research”. In this sense, belief in God can only be expressed through the use of symbolic language. Therefore, symbolism “opens up levels of reality which were otherwise closed to us”. However, because symbols are a matter of interpretation, they cannot be known to all. This means that in a sense they do not open up new levels of reality but rather a collectively shared interpretation. John Hick argues that Tillich over-emphasises the aesthetic, artistic nature of the religious symbol, making it appear very subjective and open to every kind of interpretation. Tillich’s view suggests that there is no factual truth in religious language. But, rather that religious language appeals expressive response rather than revealing knowledge.

Tillich believed that symbols such as National flags insight patriotism to people who are of that nationality. Religious Symbols are meant to convey the same feeling within people, the Star of David for example is a distinguishing and important symbol for the Jews around the world. It invokes religious meaning and patriotism for Israelis. Although this is true, it shows that religious symbols have cultural validity. A symbol in a certain culture might mean a completely different thing in another culture. An example of this would be the swastika. In olden day India the swastika was a symbol of goodness. However, it is now associated with the Nazis. Another example of symbolic interpretation is the moon and crescent which is now associated with Islam, but, used to have a different meaning in the olden days. This shows that over time symbols can change there meaning. Although the change of swastika is negative, change can be a good thing. If symbols change with time this might mean that they have more temporal validity that is understood by the young.

J.H. Randall argues that religious symbols serve four important functions. Firstly, they act as motivation which fires up our passionate emotions. Secondly, they have a social meaning, he states that people have a common social understanding of symbols which in turn strengthens the social bonds within society. Thirdly, they can be used as a method of communication, symbols express religious faith better than religious language since they have a personal interpretation which empowers us as it creates a personal bond with the symbol. Finally, Religious symbols can clarify and disclose our experience of the divine in the same way as a poet or an artist can reveal hidden depths, it would be like someone trying to explain the Mona Lisa, an impossible task even to modern day humans. Aquinas would disagree with the statement that religious language cannot get us anywhere. Aquinas argues that we can use analogies as a means of understanding God, by looking at our attributes we can discovers some of the attributes of God.

There are many forms of symbol, some examples of symbol are metaphors, myths and models. Metaphors; challenges the individual to construct their own individual definition of a symbol. Myths; seen as an insight into human experience to many people myths are seen as untrue, just as many people do not believe the ancient Greek myths of Hercules, the Minotaur or Achilles, but myths normally come from a true background and we need to decipher the meaning for ourselves. Models; Normally in the form of analogies; in terms of religious language a model is a situation in which we are all familiar which can be used to reach and explain another situation which may not be true to modern times. All these types of Symbols are very useful in order for us to express ideas and to understand God. But, the fact that they are subjective means that they do not actually help us to understand God but rather to have a personal interpretation of him. Some might argue that symbol is not effective in understanding God for this very reason. If we all have a personal view of God, then how can we worship as a community. This shows that symbol alone can not help us to understand God. We need Aquinas’ analogy, revealed and natural theology to grasp the true characteristics of God.

In conclusion, there are many problems with using symbol as a means by which to understand God. A prime example of a problem is Tillich's belief that a symbol participates in the thing it symbolises. This is a problem because he is vague about what he means by participate in how it might show reality and power of what it symbolises. For example, how does a flag ignite the power and dignity of a nation? After all it is just a piece of cloth with patterns. However, a strength of using symbols as a means of expressing ideas of God is that there is no risk of anthropomorphising God. Also, unlike the via negativa approach of trying to understand God, it does not create assumptions which might or might not be true. Like Aquinas, Tillich was right in believing that human language is inadequate to convey ultimate truth. He also argued that to use literal language of God is unhelpful and conveys a false impression of the nature of God. Many Christians would agree that this explanation is plausible since they believe that god is beyond human language and imagination. This shows that symbol is a great method of understanding God and expressing ideas about him.