A Critical Examination of W.H. Fitchett’s The Beliefs of Unbelief
W.H. Fitchett’s The Beliefs of Unbelief (1905) was written as a defense of Christianity against the rising tide of secularism and skepticism in the early twentieth century.
While rhetorically powerful for its intended audience, the book falters when examined critically. Its arguments rely on circular reasoning, Eurocentric assumptions, and a dismissal of alternative moral and philosophical traditions. This essay collects key critiques of Fitchett’s work, demonstrating that his apologetic is more persuasive as rhetoric than as philosophy.
Circular Reasoning and Reliance on Faith
One of Fitchett’s central claims is that unbelief is incoherent without God. Yet his “proof” of God rests on the authority of Jesus and scripture. This is a classic case of circular reasoning: assuming the truth of Christianity in order to prove Christianity. For readers outside the faith, such reasoning collapses, since it provides no independent evidence for divine existence.
Morality Beyond Christianity
Fitchett insists that Christianity uniquely anchors morality. However, history and philosophy show otherwise. Greek philosophy developed virtue ethics centuries before Christianity. Judaism provided moral codes long before the New Testament. Non‑Abrahamic traditions such as Buddhism and Confucianism offer coherent ethical systems without reference to a personal God. Secular philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Kant demonstrate that morality can be rationally grounded in human reason and well‑being. Christian morality itself is cumulative, borrowing heavily from Judaism and Greek thought, rather than being uniquely divine.
Civilization Without Christianity
Fitchett’s claim that civilization depends on Christianity is historically narrow. China, guided by Confucianism, thrived for millennia without Christian influence. Japan developed rich cultural traditions under Shinto and Buddhism. The Islamic Golden Age produced advances in science, medicine, and philosophy that rivaled or surpassed Christian Europe. These examples undermine Fitchett’s Eurocentric assertion that Christianity is the sole foundation of civilization.
Unbelief as Non‑Belief, Not a Creed
Fitchett portrays unbelief as a “creed” burdened with explaining the universe without God. Yet unbelief need not be a creed at all. It can simply be suspension of belief — withholding commitment until sufficient evidence appears. As you noted, one can say, “I cannot deny UFOs, but I do not believe in them.” The same logic applies to God: non‑belief is not a creed, but a refusal to affirm without proof.
First Mover vs. God of Scripture
Philosophically, one may accept the necessity of a first mover — a metaphysical principle that begins existence. But this does not logically entail the God of scripture. Religious texts often appear flawed, contradictory, or human‑authored. Fitchett conflates metaphysical necessity with Christian revelation, a leap that lacks justification.
The Silence of God
Fitchett’s apologetic ignores the problem of divine silence. With no material proof of God, religions fill the silence with claims of being the exclusive “gate” to salvation. This silence can be interpreted as nonexistence, disinterest (deism), or mystery. Either way, it undermines the certainty of Fitchett’s claims.
Christian Divisions
Finally, Fitchett portrays Christianity as coherent and unified. History contradicts this. From the Arian controversy to the Great Schism and the Reformation wars, Christians have fought and killed each other over doctrine. This fragmentation undermines the claim that Christianity uniquely provides moral unity.
Fitchett’s The Beliefs of Unbelief is rhetorically strong but philosophically weak. Its reliance on circular reasoning, Eurocentric assumptions, and dismissal of alternative moral systems limit its persuasiveness. Morality and civilization are not uniquely Christian achievements; they are human achievements across cultures and philosophies. God’s silence and the plurality of moral systems suggest that religion often markets itself as “useful” rather than demonstrably “true.” Fitchett’s book remains a historical artifact of early twentieth‑century apologetics, but its arguments cannot withstand critical scrutiny today.