A) Religious language as non-cognitive and symbolic

?

Functions of symbols (John Randall)

  • For Randall, religious symbols were non-cognitive
  • They were socially necessary, but not 'true' in the sense that religious people might assume
  • Do not 'point' to any transcendent reality, such as God
  • Religion is not essentially knowledge at all (aims and functions are not to furnish people with truth)
  • Religion expresses whatever people have felt deeply (non-cognitive)
  • A symbol is in no sense representative- instead it provokes a characteristic response in people
  • 4 functions of symbols:-
  • 1. Motivating- by firing up emotions/inspiring people to act
  • 2. Socially binding- people with the same understanding of a symbol
  • 3. Communicating- things that are non literal
  • 4. Disclosing- revealing hidden depths about spiritual matters
  • 'Religious beliefs, though far indeed from being 'meaningless', do not possess what is ordinarily meant by cognitive value'

God as that which concerns us ultimately (Paul Tillich)

  • In 'Theory of Symbols' , Tillich makes a distinction between signs/ symbols- uses traffic lights as illustrative example
  • 1. Signs do not participate in the reality of that to which they point
  • 2. Symbols do participate in the reality of that to which they point
  • 3. Symbols open up levels of reality otherwise closed
  • 4. Symbols…

Comments

No comments have yet been made