Paul Tillich (Signs vs Symbols) (theism)

Our language is a participation in the religious idea.

Signs arent the thing itself, signs instead tell/guide us towards that thing. Tillich argued in life, most words in a language are like signs. Symbols, for example, the American flag, does not point towards America, it is America. So a symbol participates in the thing itself.

Words in a language are typically signs. We dont interpret the word 'desk' as a squiggly line, but rather we understand the words context. A 'desk' is the thing we use to place paper and write on, or the thing what our laptop sits on.

So signs signify the thing they're pointing to.

Signs are also replacable for convenience, for example, colorblind people used to not be able to tell the difference between a traffic lights red and green, so the government put a blue tint in the green for conveniency (words can be changed for conveniency)

Symbols can touch our feelings, but signs do not. Symbols cannot be replaced deliberately, then can only grow and evolve over time. Again, the American flag has changed overtime, for instance the amount of stars has increased according to how many states America has. Its also a protected symbol (something which Americans are willing to fight for).

Tillich thought religious language is symbolic

Religious symbols represent something beyond our understanding, they point towards God. Wine and bread for example symbolise Jesus' blood and body. Or the cross, which is often worn by Christians. Religious language does not point towards God, it rather participates in the Divine, it is a humans way of connecting with God.