Tillich held the view that God can only be revealed through symbolic language. Symbols are different from signs. A sign merely points to something, whereas a symbol ‘participates in that to which it points’. Within contemporary society, we come across many different symbols. A famous example is the poppy, which we associate with War and remembrance Sunday. Tillich argues that religious language is symbolic in this way. He argued that the only non-symbolic statement that can be made about God is “God is the ground of all being”.
Tillich held that religious language is symbolic and retains cognitive meaning, it is objective truth. Much in the same way to how a flag is symbolic of pride for an Olympian, statements such as “God is good” are symbolic for the religious believer, as opposed to literal statements. Tillich alluded to the arts to demonstrate his point. When we hear a good piece of music, it evokes deep, emotional response within the listener. Symbolic religious language acts in the same way; it causes deep emotional responses within the religious believer, leading them to think about the nature of God in relation to the statement. However, Tillich faces a major flaw here. If religious language is symbolic, in the it evokes an emotional response and holds deep meaning for the religious believer, how can it be objective and cognitive? Cognitive statements must be either verifiable or falsifiable, and religious language can be verified in no such way. Additionally, there is no one clear understanding about what is revealed about God’s nature through religious language. If religious language was symbolic, and every religious believer interpreted religious statements in the same way, then religious language would be cognitive. However, this is not the case and there continues to be many disputes over the nature of God within religious communities. A strength of Tillich’s approach is that it highlights that religious language need not to be taken literally....