Yes, religious language is arguably predominantly symbolic, and this interpretation provides significant justification for its meaning and function.

Reasons and Justification:

1. Transcendent Referents: Religious language often attempts to describe a transcendent reality (God, Brahman, Nirvāna) that by definition lies beyond empirical human experience and conceptual categories. Literal language, designed for the empirical world, is inherently inadequate for such descriptions.

2. Analogical Nature: Concepts like "God is Father" or "God is Light" are not meant to be taken literally as physical attributes. Instead, they are analogies or metaphors that point to qualities (care, guidance, enlightenment) of the divine within human understanding.

3. Evocation of Experience: Symbolic language evokes feelings, attitudes, and existential insights rather than conveying propositional facts. Rituals, myths, and parables communicate truths about human nature, suffering, or salvation in a way that literal language cannot.

4. Meaning in Use: As Wittgenstein suggested, meaning is often use. Religious symbols derive their meaning from their role in communal practices, worship, and the individual's spiritual journey.

While some religious statements can be propositional, the deeper truths and the ineffable nature of the divine often necessitate a symbolic interpretation for profound communication.