Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Do Apologists Employ the "Humpty Dumpty" Defense?

August 23, 2013 by Cory Tucholski

Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com
Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com

When Alice meets Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, she finds that he uses words very creatively.  In fact, a word means exactly what Humpty wants it to mean, no more and no less.

Christian apologists are sometimes accused of employing a “Humpty Dumpty Defense” by our opponents.  This particularly is seen with faith, which is understood as a form of loyalty to a patron based upon that patron’s proven ability to deliver on his promises.

Following the link, you will read a robust defense of why faith (by “infamous” Internet apologist J.P. Holding) is understood this way, as opposed to the popular use of the term to mean “belief in the absence of, or in the teeth of, evidence.”

People believe faith to be “blind faith” — trusting when there appears to be no reason to.  Belief in the absence of evidence is a virtue to these people.  The less God shows himself, or (better) if the evidence actually leads one to believe that God is fictional, the more reward there will be in heaven for believing.

This is a serious mischaracterization of true Christian faith.  And when I — or others — argue for the traditional understanding of faith, we are accused of employing a “Humpty Dumpty” Defense.

And that is wrong.  Now let me tell you why.

Let’s first examine the passage from Through the Looking Glass:

Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it carefully. ‘That seems to be done right—’ he began.

‘You’re holding it upside down!’ Alice interrupted.

‘To be sure I was!’ Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. ‘I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that SEEMS to be done right—though I haven’t time to look it over thoroughly just now—and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents—’

‘Certainly,’ said Alice.

‘And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

What is Humpty really doing here?  The new meaning for “glory” was an ad hoc redefinition bearing no relationship to the current or historical meaning.  Or, in simpler terms, he made it up on the spot.

By contrast, with “faith,” Holding explains the cultural and historical definition.  He further argues that this is how a first century Christian would have understood faith; that the Church Fathers were using faith in this way; and that the larger culture used the word in nonreligious contexts in the same way.  He backs this up with citations from academic source material.

Holding supplies good reasons for understanding the word against our culture’s use of it.  Christian apologists, therefore, are not using the “Humpty Dumpty” Defense.  We are not arbitrarily choosing a more convenient definition for faith; we are supplying logical arguments for why this is the proper definition.  This is very different than what the anthropomorphic egg was doing in the Lewis Carrol story.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Answering Objections to Doing Apologetics, Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic

Comments

  1. Frank says

    August 28, 2013 at 3:57 am

    Good article. Apologists and skeptics almost need a list of defined terms before beginning a debate so as not to debate strawmen.

    The misuse of “faith” goes both ways. I’ve heard believers accuse skeptics of having faith for things like evolution.

  2. Lothar Lorraine says

    August 24, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    I define faith as hope in the midst of insufficient evidence to decide.

    Greetings from continental Europe.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

    http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com

    • ldwaddell says

      August 27, 2013 at 8:36 am

      I don’t recall the article asking for personal definitions. As I understood the article it was giving a socio historical definition that shows that real, biblical faith is not understood as beliving without sufficient evidence. Rather biblical faith is based on proof of God’s reliability . So after reading the article , , understanding the socio-historical history of origins of the meaning of faith and yet clinging to your own definition, it appears that you are employing the Humpty Dumpty method.

  3. Steven Carr says

    August 24, 2013 at 8:24 am

    In the New Testament, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him to go to Egypt.

    Do you have faith that a real angel appeared in somebody’s dream?

    Or do you need evidence that what you dream when you sleep is not populated by real beings?

    • Cory Tucholski says

      August 29, 2013 at 12:47 am

      I BELIEVE that an angel spoke to Joseph through a dream.

      I do NOT BELIEVE that real beings populate my dreams.

      HOWEVER, I see nothing that would exclude a being like an angel communicating to us via a dream.

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance