Symbol

"That which is the true ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality infinitely. Therefore, no finite reality can express it directly and properly. Religiously speaking, God transcends his own name."

— Paul Tillich

"Whatever we say about that which concerns us ultimately, whether or not we call it God, has a symbolic meaning. It points beyond itself while participating in that to which it points. In no other way can faith express itself adequately. The language of faith is the language of symbols."

— Paul Tillich

1. Point Beyond Themselves

• Symbols point to something beyond themselves—to a deeper reality.
• The cross points to Christianity, to Jesus, to salvation
• Religious language points to God, to ultimate reality

2. Participate in What They Point To

• This is the defining characteristic of symbols.
• Symbols don't just indicate—they share in the reality they represent.
• The cross participates in God's love, forgiveness, sacrifice
• It's not just information about Christianity—it's part of Christianity

3. Open Up Levels of Reality

• Symbols reveal deeper meanings and spiritual dimensions of reality that would otherwise be closed to us.
• A crucifix opens up spiritual understanding of suffering, sacrifice, redemption
• Religious language opens up the "ultimate dimension" of existence

4. Open Up Dimensions of the Soul

• Symbols also open up corresponding levels of our soul/psyche that resonate with those levels of reality.
• When we engage with religious symbols, they awaken spiritual dimensions within us.

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

— Paul Tillich

Strength 1: Sidesteps the Meaning Problem

The Achievement: Tillich solves the difficulty of meaningfully talking about a God beyond our understanding.

• Religious language doesn't need to describe God—it connects us to God.
• We don't need to understand God to be connected to God through symbols.
• Religious language functions as a kind of religious experience.
• It connects human souls to God without requiring intellectual comprehension.

Strength 2: Captures Spiritual Dimension

Tillich's theory successfully captures the spiritual side of religious language and explains how it actually functions for believers.

• When Christians look at a crucifix or pray, they have deep spiritual feelings.
• This is often the most important thing to them—not cold factual beliefs.
• Tillich's theory honors this spiritual dimension.

Strength 3: Non-Cognitive But Meaningful

Symbols are non-cognitive (not about factual truth or empirical verification), but they're still meaningful because they:

• Arouse emotion and inspire action
• Stimulate community
• Express experiences that can't be expressed literally
• Clarify experience of the divine

Strength 4: Explains Symbol Power

Why "Never Say 'Only a Symbol'":

• Tillich famously said: "One should never say 'only a symbol,' but one should say 'not less than a symbol.'"
• Symbols have power that surpasses non-symbolic language.
• They evoke, inspire, transform, unite—they participate in ultimate reality.

Criticism 1: John Hick—"Participation" Is Unclear

Hick's Objection: John Hick criticized Tillich's idea of "participation" as unclear.

• What does it really mean for a symbol to "participate" in what it points to?
• If this is unclear, then there's little difference between a symbol and a sign.
• Both just point to something else.

Criticism 2: William Alston—Symbols Are Meaningless

William Alston argues symbols are meaningless because we don't know whether they're true or not.

• If symbols are non-cognitive (not about facts), how do we evaluate them?
• If we can't verify or falsify them, what meaning do they have?

Criticism 3: Paul Edwards—Cannot Be Verified or Falsified

Paul Edwards argues in "Professor Tillich's Confusions" that symbols are incomprehensible because they're subjective.

• Symbols "don't convey any facts".
• Edwards argues Tillich's view is circular: You can't understand symbols unless you already understand symbols.
• You can't comprehend symbols unless you already comprehend what they refer to.

Criticism 4: Still Risks Non-Realism

• If religious language is symbolic and doesn't refer to an objective reality, this implies non-realism.
• Non-realism: religious beliefs are subjective human constructs, not truths about external reality.
• Many religious believers are realists—they think religious statements do refer to an objective God who exists.
• Tillich's symbolic approach seems to undermine this.