I have previously written about the term ‘professional syncretism’ in other places. By that, I meant the dynamic whereby Christians who have a personal faith in Christ still use anti-theist professional jargon.
We could generate a list of phrases that contain words that we often use without testing our assumptions about the meaning of the term. For example, we often use the term ‘emotions’, but what do we mean by that term, and what is the Biblical equivalent, if there is one? And if there is not an equivalent, are we missing some important Biblical principle in our thinking about ‘emotions’?
“Mindset” is one of those kinds of terms. Take, for example, Carol Dweck’s use of the term. Her concept of growth and fixed mindsets become very popular amongst educators, very quickly. Indeed, according to Stuart Ritchie, in using Dweck’s initial popularity as a case study while explaining the methodological limitations of her research, “The risk of such overhyping is that teachers and politicians begin to view ideas like mindset as kind of panacea for education, focusing time and resources on them that might be better spent on dealing with the complex web of social, economic and other reasons that some children fail at school.” [i]
So, “mindset” is not well supported in its initial research. Is that the cautious message you heard as it rolled out? Probably not.
But there are more important concerns with the concept of “mindset”. In a straightforward sense, mindset can simply mean “how we set our mind” with reference to any given topic. Some people explain that it is our beliefs that set our minds; others put more weight on our cultures being the main factor.
Another way “mindset” is used is with reference to “addictions”. The phrase can go like this: “Well, he is addicted – that is his mindset,” or more simply, “His mind is set on his booze.” How does a mind become so set? If we take what the general media discussions and headlines as a guide, it is the drugs that have power over our minds – that is what makes us addicted.
But that in turn presupposes our minds do not have any free will left if we take certain substances, like heroin, or the nicotine in cigarettes, or the alcohol in booze. Is that a reasonable proposition with what we know about human nature, or the teaching of the Bible?
Peter Hitchens (brother the late New Atheist Christopher Hitchens) has his doubts:
What sustains the continuing belief that “addiction” is a physical disease is presupposition, based upon conventional wisdom, allied with desire. People feel a near-superstitious terror that mere contact with the “addictive” substance is enough to bring ruin. [ii]
Hitchens explains one of the consequences of accepting this untested presupposition:
In other words, conscious choice plays little or no role in the actual state of addiction; as a result, a person cannot choose not to be addicted. The most an addict can do is choose not to use the substance or engage in the behaviour that reinforces the entire self-destructive reward-circuitry loop. (italics in the original)
What Hitchens explains later in his article is that all these reflections beg the question of whether we have free will or not, even in the face of substances that with continuous use may bring us to physiological dependence (and thus some kind of physical withdrawal if we stop). He gives case studies about how heroin withdrawal is overstated. I found this when I was an addiction’s counsellor. Any dramatic withdrawal symptoms were due to disrupted desires. The physiological symptoms are closer to a bad case of the flu. In the language of Hitchens, when this happens, “reason overcomes desire.” And it is not due to simple brain pathways:
Scan the drug abuser’s brain as you will, you will not be able to demonstrate that any part of it has forced him to take his drug of choice, or is stopping him from giving it up. … Yes, the brain of the drug user changes physically and observably (so, it might be noted, does the brain of the London taxi-driver who must learn by heart the streets of London before being given his license). But this is the sign of an organ adapting to conditions, not a disease. The same brain can go on to adapt to a life without the drug involved, or a life without taxi-driving.
Why can the brain ‘go on to adapt to a life without the drug involved’? That begs the question of “what is the mind?” because it is certainly more than the brain.
My simple (and some would argue reductionist) explanation is that the mind is the interface between the brain and soul. The brain receives physical information through our five senses so that we can make sense of that aspect of life. It is our soul that helps us make sense of non-physical aspects of reality – our spirituality.
Thus, humans do have decision making capacity to either agree with our physical instincts, or ignore them. But this act of self-consciousness cannot be explained by our brains. Human thinking beyond instinct is a spiritual activity. That is why nothing we are learning is neutral. It is why we can decide what to do with our desires. It is why in the Bible we are taught to renew the spirits of our minds (Ephesians 4:23). It is why we are told not to think and act like animals (Jude 10). It is why ‘nous’ invokes moral responsibility for our thoughts. [iii]
But our world insists that part of life – like addictive substances – control our minds, and mindsets.
What do our students and counselees think about this?
Grace and peace,
Stephen
[i] Stuart Ritchie (2020) Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science, BH Books London, p.153
[ii] The Fantasy of Addiction by Peter Hitchens | Articles | First Things
[iii] You can read much more on this topic in Stephen J Fyson, “Why Good Thinking Starts with God”, 2024, Ambassador International Press.