The Symbolic World

The scope of this post is to attempt a translation of Christian language into a description more easily understood by the kind of ‘skeptical atheist’ you’re likely to find in academia. These derivative explanations are not meant to be 1:1 replacements – they will be lower in resolution and incomplete. Despite this, a successful translation will still point the unbeliever in the right direction.

“Ask 10 Christians to describe God and you’ll get 10 different answers.” This is used as a argument against religious people; if their descriptions of God seem contradict (on the surface), they can’t be talking about the same thing, right? But the nature of God is ineffable, so it is to be expected that people with different experiences will describe Him in different ways (we are all operating with incomplete information).

How can we be sure that we have a “proper” understanding of God, if it is impossible to capture His nature with words? By trying to look “through” various descriptions of God and finding a converging pattern across generations of Christians. Instead of attempting to “connect” descriptions of God, use them as guiding lenses to help us “triangulate” His nature.

Then if we’ve correctly glimpsed the properties of God the ancient Christians were trying to guide us toward, we might try to offer a translation in our own words to an audience sharing our experience in the world. Not an update or improvement of descriptions that came before, but another (transient) incomplete account of a nature that is ultimately ineffable.

I think the symbolic interpretation of scripture often is more true than literal/historical. Historical accounts of the resurrection, for example, cannot be proven (or disproven). So to base your beliefs on an unprovable claim is build your house on a foundation of sand. If there are deeper meanings to these stories that describe eternal patterns that can be verified, we should make that the rock on which we build our faith.

I believe the historical account of the resurrection like a physicist believes in the big bang. Although that is the beginning of the astronomical narrative, it is not the foundation. The foundation is logic and mathematical principles, then physical laws that can be tested, then observations that the universe appears to be expanding, then tracing causality (entropy) back to a single point in the past (big bang).

The big bang is not an experiment that can be replicated in a laboratory, but it follows from observations and testable principles. Likewise, the resurrection can not be replicated in a lab, but follows from mystical truths (eternal patterns) throughout the old and new testaments – all of which point back to it. This sort of view requires an appreciation for both the literal and symbolic understandings of scripture. (Alexandria vs Antioch, and Dominican (Thomist) vs. Franciscan)

Modern Christians focus on the literal (Antioch and Dominican), and they are missing at least half of a full understanding – but they are still Christians.

I am much more drawn to the symbolic understanding (Alexandria and Franciscan) even if I have a difficult time fully buying into literal views of things like the resurrection – but I should also be recognized as Christian, even if I’m also “missing” half of a full understanding.

The modern Christian might respond that the literal interpretation is more important and foundational – and that you must begin with that. But I disagree. I believe Heaven is more real than Earth; Metaphysics is more true than Physics; and the symbolic reading of the biblical text is the rock to build our house upon – literal accounts are ultimately a foundation of sand.

The main traditional “schools” or methods of Christian theology developed around key centers of learning, interpretive approaches to Scripture, philosophical influences, and later religious orders. They often overlapped and weren’t always rigidly opposed, but they shaped debates on exegesis (interpretation), Christology, and doctrine.

Early Patristic Schools (Late Antiquity)

The two most prominent early schools were the School of Alexandria and the School of Antioch.

• Alexandrian School (Egypt, from ~2nd century):
  Associated with figures like Clement of Alexandria and especially Origen. It emphasized allegorical/spiritual interpretation of Scripture, seeking deeper symbolic, philosophical, and theological meanings beyond the literal text. Influenced by Platonism and Philo (a Jewish allegorist), it prioritized Christ’s divinity and the unity of his person (tending toward a “one incarnate nature” emphasis in Christology). This approach helped defend doctrines like the Trinity but could sometimes be seen as overly speculative.
• Antiochene School (Syria, from ~late 3rd century):
  This was the main counterpart, with figures like Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret of Cyrus. It favored a more literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation, focusing on context, the plain sense of the text, and typology (where Old Testament events prefigure New Testament realities without wild allegory). It stressed Christ’s full humanity and the distinction between his divine and human natures. Philosophically, it leaned more Aristotelian/empirical than Platonic.

Key differences: Alexandria was more mystical/theological (spiritual sense first); Antioch more historical/practical (literal sense primary, with “interpretive restraint” on allegory). Modern scholars note these weren’t absolute—both used multiple methods, and differences were often driven by underlying theology (e.g., Christology) rather than hermeneutics alone. Other early influences included Jerusalem (apostolic roots, more practical) and places like Edessa/Nisibis (Syriac traditions), but Alexandria and Antioch dominated Eastern debates.

These schools influenced the great ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, Chalcedon) on Trinity and Christology.

Medieval Schools and Methods

In the Middle Ages, theology shifted to cathedral/monastic schools and then universities (e.g., Paris, Oxford). The dominant method became Scholasticism (“of the schools”)—a systematic, dialectical approach using logic, Aristotle (rediscovered via Islamic scholars), and “disputed questions” to harmonize faith and reason. Key figures: Anselm, Peter Abelard, Peter Lombard.

Within this, religious orders developed distinct traditions:

• Dominican School (Thomism): Led by Thomas Aquinas (Dominican Order). Emphasized reason, Aristotle, and the harmony of faith/reason. Strong on natural theology (proving God’s existence via reason), analogy of being, and a more intellectual approach. Dominicans focused on preaching, teaching, and combating heresy through clear doctrine.
• Franciscan School: Associated with Bonaventure and especially John Duns Scotus (the “Subtle Doctor”). It was more Augustinian/Platonic in flavor, emphasizing will, love, affectivity, radical poverty, and the primacy of Christ (e.g., Scotus argued the Incarnation would have happened even without the Fall). Franciscans leaned toward mysticism, devotion (Crib, Cross, Eucharist), humility, and sometimes voluntarism (God’s will as primary). Scotism became a rival to Thomism.

Thomist vs. Franciscan/Scotist differences: Thomists saw theology as more scientific/intellectual with strong use of Aristotle; Franciscans were often more intuitive, willing to critique strict Aristotelianism, and focused on divine love/freedom. Debates raged on issues like the Immaculate Conception (Franciscans favored it earlier) and the nature of being/knowledge.

Other medieval notes:

• Nominalism (e.g., William of Ockham, also Franciscan-influenced): Focused on individual things over universals; impacted later empiricism and Reformation thought.
• The fourfold sense of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral/tropological, anagogical/eschatological) became a standard medieval framework, building on patristic methods.

Later Developments

Post-medieval, you see Jesuit traditions (more practical/missionary, associated with Molina on grace/free will), Protestant schools (Lutheran, Reformed/Calvinist with emphasis on literal sense and sola scriptura), and others.

God as arena: like laws of nature (gravity). Is gravity real? Where is gravity located? You can attempt to defy gravity, but it will alway win in the end. Early scientists said they were trying to learn the mind of God when they were studying to discover these natural laws.

Natural laws are themselves supranatural. The principles governing the physical word are meta-physical. Together, all supranatural laws (discovered and undiscovered) are a good way of understanding God the Father (the arena, the universe).

God as Agent: Rickard Dawkins Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS). How are humans supposed to act? If we stray too far from Christ’s example, there are natural consequences. You can view history as a competitive interplay between different survival strategies and power games, but the paattern running through it all – the strategy that will get your body and soul (genes and memes) into Heaven (the future) is shown in the life of Jesus.