What aspect of religious language does Tillich highlight in his critique?

Tillich emphasizes that religious language is symbolic rather than strictly cognitive. He argues that religious symbols convey meanings that transcend literal interpretations and direct cognitive assertions about reality. For him, symbols function to express deeper truths and to facilitate a relationship with the divine, engaging the emotions and spirit rather than merely the intellect. This symbolic nature of religious language allows it to resonate with human experiences and existential questions, offering insights and meanings that cannot always be captured through straightforward, factual statements.

In contrast, the other options either focus on aspects of language that don't align with Tillich's approach or mischaracterize the function of religious discourse. For instance, asserting that religious language is always falsifiable or can be empirically tested overlooks the profound and often intangible experiences that such language is meant to express. Similarly, considering it primarily cognitive restricts the richness of its communicative capacity, as it neglects the symbolic functions that Tillich highlights in communicating complex and nuanced spiritual truths.