Final answer:
The statement that symbols are not intrinsically connected to what they represent suggests that symbols are arbitrary. This characterizes the nature of symbols as culturally defined and open to multiple interpretations, both in literature and religion.
Step-by-step explanation:
When stating that symbols are not intrinsically connected to what they represent, you are asserting that symbols are arbitrary. This means that the relationship between symbols and their meanings is not based on any inherent, natural, or necessary connection. Instead, these meanings are given by the conventions of society and can vary across different cultures or contexts.
In literature, the value of using symbols is significant because they allow a writer to convey complex ideas and emotions in a condensed manner. A symbol's meaning is typically connotative rather than definitive, which invites multiple interpretations from readers, enriching the reading experience and allowing for a deeper level of engagement with the text.
In the realm of symbolism in religion, symbols like the crescent and star in Islam or the cross in Christianity carry multivocal meanings. They play crucial roles in conveying the beliefs and values of a religion, are embedded in culture, and are interpreted differently depending on the context and individual perspectives.