Evaluate the view that symbols can effectively communicate religious language
This essay will evaluate whether symbols can effectively communicate religious language by
examining key explanations of symbolic language, as well as evaluating them.
Religious Language is an area of Philosophy concerned with the properties and meaning of
expressions referring to religion or God. In linguistics, syntax is a set of rules and
arrangements that sentences should follow in order to be meaningful. Sentences should also
follow all conditions of meaning to be considered meaningful. The conditions of meaning
explain that a sentence must use recognisable words, follow grammatical rules and
communicate something. There are two philosophical approaches to whether a statement is
meaningful or not: cognitivism states a statement is meaningful if it expresses a fact and is
based on empirical observation, whereas non-cognitivism states that, as well as factual
statements having meaning, statements that are based on feelings and interpretation also
have meaning. Moreover, there are two different types of words used in religious language:
univocal words only have one meaning in any context, however equivocal words have
different meanings depending on the context they were used in. Religious language can also
be classed as realist, meaning the terminology used in a religious statement is to be
understood the same way as in ordinary non-religious statements; anti-realist opposes this
and it is argued that terminology cannot be understood in a way that exists in reality.
Religious language can link to Ethics as Divine Command Theory is a normative ethical
theory where it is stated that what is good is what God commands. To understand God and
religion, we must use religious language which can be demonstrated in many ways, such as
through symbols. Symbols as a way of communicating religious language will be examined
in this essay.
Tillich explains that man’s ultimate concern is spiritual concern, hence there is a need to
understand God and religion. He also explains that man’s ultimate concern must be
expressed symbolically as symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate. His
theory of participation explains that symbols help describe things that cannot always be
expressed in words alone, hence the only way to describe God and ultimate concern in a
meaningful way is through symbols. Symbols open up levels of reality usually closed to us,
unlock elements of our soul. They also help us identify ideas and qualities of concepts, such
as a dove used as a sign of peace. We could do the same with using symbols to explain
ideas about God. For example, the cross is symbolic as it symbolises God’s love for
humanity, love and forgiveness, prayer and worship and Jesus’s sacrifice. God as an
ultimate concern transcends the realm of finite reality and cannot be expressed directly,
hence the most effective way to communicate religious language is through symbols.
Randall proposes an anti-realist view of symbols. The meaning of symbols has meaning in
reality because of those who adopt it. Although these symbols have no empirical or rational
explanation, they still hold meaning and can effectively communicate religious language.
This is because they provide a revelation of truth and are a form of communication in the
religious sphere. Randall also explains a distinction between a sign, which stands for
something other than itself, and a symbol which provokes a response from those who see it.
This can also explain how symbols are motivators as they may provoke responses that
influence them to forms of action. For example, a cross forms a response of spiritual
connection and may influence an action such as prayer. Therefore, this shows how symbols
may be an effective way to communicate religious language as they are a key way to
approach and understand the divine.
A criticism of symbolic religious language is that it is not comprehensive enough to
effectively communicate religion. William Alston criticises symbols for removing the
meaningful content of religious language. Objective and factual statements such as religious
This essay will evaluate whether symbols can effectively communicate religious language by
examining key explanations of symbolic language, as well as evaluating them.
Religious Language is an area of Philosophy concerned with the properties and meaning of
expressions referring to religion or God. In linguistics, syntax is a set of rules and
arrangements that sentences should follow in order to be meaningful. Sentences should also
follow all conditions of meaning to be considered meaningful. The conditions of meaning
explain that a sentence must use recognisable words, follow grammatical rules and
communicate something. There are two philosophical approaches to whether a statement is
meaningful or not: cognitivism states a statement is meaningful if it expresses a fact and is
based on empirical observation, whereas non-cognitivism states that, as well as factual
statements having meaning, statements that are based on feelings and interpretation also
have meaning. Moreover, there are two different types of words used in religious language:
univocal words only have one meaning in any context, however equivocal words have
different meanings depending on the context they were used in. Religious language can also
be classed as realist, meaning the terminology used in a religious statement is to be
understood the same way as in ordinary non-religious statements; anti-realist opposes this
and it is argued that terminology cannot be understood in a way that exists in reality.
Religious language can link to Ethics as Divine Command Theory is a normative ethical
theory where it is stated that what is good is what God commands. To understand God and
religion, we must use religious language which can be demonstrated in many ways, such as
through symbols. Symbols as a way of communicating religious language will be examined
in this essay.
Tillich explains that man’s ultimate concern is spiritual concern, hence there is a need to
understand God and religion. He also explains that man’s ultimate concern must be
expressed symbolically as symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate. His
theory of participation explains that symbols help describe things that cannot always be
expressed in words alone, hence the only way to describe God and ultimate concern in a
meaningful way is through symbols. Symbols open up levels of reality usually closed to us,
unlock elements of our soul. They also help us identify ideas and qualities of concepts, such
as a dove used as a sign of peace. We could do the same with using symbols to explain
ideas about God. For example, the cross is symbolic as it symbolises God’s love for
humanity, love and forgiveness, prayer and worship and Jesus’s sacrifice. God as an
ultimate concern transcends the realm of finite reality and cannot be expressed directly,
hence the most effective way to communicate religious language is through symbols.
Randall proposes an anti-realist view of symbols. The meaning of symbols has meaning in
reality because of those who adopt it. Although these symbols have no empirical or rational
explanation, they still hold meaning and can effectively communicate religious language.
This is because they provide a revelation of truth and are a form of communication in the
religious sphere. Randall also explains a distinction between a sign, which stands for
something other than itself, and a symbol which provokes a response from those who see it.
This can also explain how symbols are motivators as they may provoke responses that
influence them to forms of action. For example, a cross forms a response of spiritual
connection and may influence an action such as prayer. Therefore, this shows how symbols
may be an effective way to communicate religious language as they are a key way to
approach and understand the divine.
A criticism of symbolic religious language is that it is not comprehensive enough to
effectively communicate religion. William Alston criticises symbols for removing the
meaningful content of religious language. Objective and factual statements such as religious
