Symbols and Religious Language

Abstract

If we were to attempt to define a symbol we might say that ‘whatever has meaning is a symbol and the meaning is whatever is expressed by the symbol’.¹ Given such a comprehensive definition it could be argued that all words and figures are symbols and similarly that all acts are symbols since words, figures and acts have meaning. A more precise definition might be that ‘the essence of a symbol is ... that its importance, value and meaning is not inherent in the intrinsic properties of the symbol itself, but in the thing symbolized’ and that the relationship between the symbol and the thing symbolised is conventional and arbitrary rather than intrinsically caused.² The implication of this definition is that symbols are conceived as developing within social structures and cultural environments, or within what might be called forms of life, and that we look in vain for what is called ‘a cross-cultural, pan-human pattern of symbols’.³ That is, the choice and development of a symbol is the result of its acceptability and of decisions taken within particular social, religious or cultural contexts. Furthermore, the relevance of a symbol, or its value, meaning and importance, is to be found within these contexts and is related to that which is symbolised.