Macintyre's Dilemma Analysis

According to Macintyre, it is difficult to understand or believe that two people share a concept where they do not agree on every judgement of the concept. It may be true if they agree on some point of the concept. He pointed out that some people argue on the point that skeptics of religion and believers of religion do not agree on religious concept, but they do agree on non-religious concept therefore, they share a concept. Their point is that both religion and non-religion uses the same form of concept in judgement. However, Macintyre explains that people with such view are making mistake of ignoring religious concept such (as God, sin, and salvation) which has no counterpart on religious concept in non- religious context. Another mistake is in religious …show more content…
According to the author, anthropologists (the primitive societies) claim to agree on a concept known as ‘mana’ or ‘tabu’ but they do not share it. In attempt to solve his dilemma, Macintyre put his focus on three different way of discussing it. He started by discussing anthropologists Le’vy Bruhl concept of Primitive thought and said Le’vy Bruhl view Primitive thought as Pre-logical. In terms of the study of natural Phenomena Primitive, thought has a rule to follow, but in speaking, it has no rule to follow. The author related Le’vy Bruhl concept as being similar to philosopher Carnap interpretation of religious language in philosophy of religion. Carnap believe that religious language can only be study in the natural phenomenon, but it concept cannot be grasp as it cannot be conceptual. The author shift his point to another concept, which is contradicted to both Le’vy Bruhl and Carnap. These concepts are anthropologists Evans-Pritchard Nuer concept of the divine, “kwoth” and philosopher Peter Winch “intelligibility”