I am probably the most religion-friendly atheist here with an interest in its history, so I have to challenge this :)
Basically mind-body dualism was invented by Descartes and the Catholic Church always believed and AFAIK still does in Aristotelean hylomorphic dualism, where everything consists of matter and substantial form, basically information. So in this view, very roughly a plant consists of matter and DNA, an animal of matter, DNA and info stored in the brain, and so on. It is the substantial form or the information that was called originally “soul”. The reason for the general misunderstanding is that Catholics also argued that part of the human substantial form, substantial form is supernatural, because human cognition can see abstractions, not only specific things, like it can see trianglehood not only triangual objects. For this reason they think a small part of the soul, the abstract thinking part which we may call Little Mathemathician survives death and links up after death with the Big Mathemathician, which is called beatific vision. But as this is not really fun in the longer run, to be a purely abstract thinking agent without emotions and memories and everything that died with the brain, that is why they also teach the resurrection of the body later on. But this not mind-body dualism, this is a small—if superior—part of the mind vs. everything else dualism. BTW, if not obvious, why is it wrong: because abstractions are invented, made, abstracted away, modelled, not discovered, they have a map-terrain problem here.
However, it is also true that they teach that for every being a good life means living according to his nature and for a human being this abstract thinking part is a unique part of our nature, the only thing other animals don’t have, and thus living according to it means overriding our instincts with abstract, general principles, like ethics or laws.
So, practically yes, but not in the Cartesian dualism sense, and it is more like the abstract thinking, general-principles part of the mind ruling the other parts mind. But since both Catholics and atheists agree in the other parts of the mind being natural and biological (obviously, in reality the abstract part too, because abstractions are made, not discovered, hence they do not require a supernatural organ for their discovery), obviously we may as well call natural, biological minds as well bodies, so literally speaking you are right, and I don’t even know what I am objecting about really. I just wanted an excuse to tell it because I think Scholasticism is one of the best fantasy worlds ever made, as long as you don’t take it as something that wants to be true (unfortuantely they want to take it so), it is fairly cool, way more logically consistent than Middle-Earth for example.
Christian :-) It’s the typical Western mind-body dualism with the goal of the (superior) mind triumphing over the (beast-like) body.
Hmm. Is it possible at least certain kinds of socialism inherited that? Since religion had such a little influence on my upbringing...
Well, Christian ideas formed much of Western culture and Marxism is certainly a Western-culture phenomenon.
Also, socialism wanted cogs in a machine and it was useful for cogs to be physically fit and overcome physical hardship through love of .
I am probably the most religion-friendly atheist here with an interest in its history, so I have to challenge this :)
Basically mind-body dualism was invented by Descartes and the Catholic Church always believed and AFAIK still does in Aristotelean hylomorphic dualism, where everything consists of matter and substantial form, basically information. So in this view, very roughly a plant consists of matter and DNA, an animal of matter, DNA and info stored in the brain, and so on. It is the substantial form or the information that was called originally “soul”. The reason for the general misunderstanding is that Catholics also argued that part of the human substantial form, substantial form is supernatural, because human cognition can see abstractions, not only specific things, like it can see trianglehood not only triangual objects. For this reason they think a small part of the soul, the abstract thinking part which we may call Little Mathemathician survives death and links up after death with the Big Mathemathician, which is called beatific vision. But as this is not really fun in the longer run, to be a purely abstract thinking agent without emotions and memories and everything that died with the brain, that is why they also teach the resurrection of the body later on. But this not mind-body dualism, this is a small—if superior—part of the mind vs. everything else dualism. BTW, if not obvious, why is it wrong: because abstractions are invented, made, abstracted away, modelled, not discovered, they have a map-terrain problem here.
However, it is also true that they teach that for every being a good life means living according to his nature and for a human being this abstract thinking part is a unique part of our nature, the only thing other animals don’t have, and thus living according to it means overriding our instincts with abstract, general principles, like ethics or laws.
So, practically yes, but not in the Cartesian dualism sense, and it is more like the abstract thinking, general-principles part of the mind ruling the other parts mind. But since both Catholics and atheists agree in the other parts of the mind being natural and biological (obviously, in reality the abstract part too, because abstractions are made, not discovered, hence they do not require a supernatural organ for their discovery), obviously we may as well call natural, biological minds as well bodies, so literally speaking you are right, and I don’t even know what I am objecting about really. I just wanted an excuse to tell it because I think Scholasticism is one of the best fantasy worlds ever made, as long as you don’t take it as something that wants to be true (unfortuantely they want to take it so), it is fairly cool, way more logically consistent than Middle-Earth for example.