Religious Language: Symbols

Lesson Details

• Subject: AQA Religious Studies (Religious Language – Symbols)
• Level: A-Level (Year 12)
• Duration: 100 minutes
• Class Size: 4 students
• Exam Board: AQA
• Specification Area: Paper 2 – Philosophy of Religion (Religious Language)

---

Lesson Objectives

By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

1. Explain the role of symbols in religious language.
2. Analyse Paul Tillich’s theory of symbols and compare it with other approaches.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of religious symbols in communicating meaning.
4. Apply their understanding through a creative, debate-driven activity.

---

Lesson Structure

Starter Activity (15 mins) – Symbolism in Everyday Life

• Task: Show students a series of symbolic images (e.g., a national flag, a wedding ring, a stop sign).
• Discussion Questions:
  • What do these symbols represent?
  • How do they evoke meaning beyond their physical form?
  • Can symbols be misunderstood or lose meaning over time?
• Introduce how this links to religious language—many argue that religious statements function similarly to symbols.

---

Main Teaching (30 mins) – Theories of Religious Symbols

Paul Tillich and His Theory of Religious Symbols

• Explanation:

  • Paul Tillich distinguished between signs (which point to something but hold no deeper power) and symbols (which both represent and participate in the reality they express).
  • Religious symbols, like the cross in Christianity, convey deeper truths beyond human comprehension.

• Comparing Tillich with Other Views:

  • Aquinas – Analogy vs. Symbol: Aquinas saw religious language as analogy rather than symbolic.
  • Logical Positivists (Ayer & Flew) – They criticised religious symbols, arguing they lack empirical verification.
  • Wittgenstein – Religious language as a ‘language game’; meaning depends on context.

• Discussion Question for Students:

  • Do religious symbols convey truth, or are they simply figurative expressions?

---

Activity (30 mins) – Symbol Debate & Creation

Task 1: Debate (15 mins)

• Students split into two pairs:
  • Pro-Symbolism: Defend the position that religious symbols hold deep, objective meaning.
  • Critics: Challenge this view from a logical positivist or humanist perspective.
• Encourage use of Tillich’s ideas, Wittgenstein’s language games, and verification/falsification principles.
• Class votes on which argument was most convincing.

Task 2: Create a New Religious Symbol (15 mins)

• Each student designs their own symbolic representation of a concept such as hope, eternity, or transcendence.
• They must justify:
  • Why they chose the image.
  • How it "participates" in the deeper meaning (a la Tillich).
  • Whether it could hold universal meaning.
• They present their symbols to the group, linking back to the earlier discussion.

---

Plenary (15 mins) – Reflection & Exam-Style Question

• Students answer the question:
  “Religious symbols are more meaningful than literal religious language.” Discuss.
• Encourage them to structure their answers using:
  • A clear thesis statement
  • Arguments for (Tillich, Wittgenstein)
  • Arguments against (Ayer, Flew)
  • A justified conclusion
• They peer-assess each other’s responses, offering one strength and one area for improvement.

---

Assessment & Homework

• In-Class: Participation in debate, justification of created symbol, structured written response.
• Homework:
  • Research an additional critique of religious symbols (e.g., Barth’s idea of ineffability).
  • Prepare arguments for a future discussion on analogy vs. symbol.

---

Resources & Differentiation

Materials Needed:

• Printed images for the starter
• Coloured paper & pens for the creative task
• Handout summarising key philosophers & their views

Adaptations for Different Learners:

• Advanced: Encourage students to engage with more complex criticisms of Tillich.
• Support: Provide structured sentence starters for the debate.

---

Final Thought

This lesson encourages a lively, discussion-based approach to religious language that not only meets AQA specifications but also pushes students to think critically and creatively. By balancing philosophical rigour with interactive activities, this plan ensures deep engagement with the concept of religious symbols.