But from the contradictory statements about the Deity which appeared on this questionnaire, one suspects that to these Harvard respondents, this spiritual Presence simply allows them to state whatever comes to mind about Him, and not to develop any meaningful image of God in their own minds. God is what one wants Him to be at a particular moment, and if we can affirm nothing about Him, we can feel comfortable that He will not chastise us for our failings and our apostasy--for who is to determine what is failing and what is apostasy but ourselves, who create God? An eclectic mind which does not wish to be tied down to dictated beliefs but which wishes still to keep the forms of religion will find in this kind of "Presence" just the kind of God for his every need--except that of his existential fulfillment. Even the non-believers do not wish to reject all possibility of God, for this too imposes restrictions upon their habits of thought. With the possibility that a God may exist always within reach of his clutching hand, the agnostic may proceed to fashion his own religious philosophy and take or reject the convenient fruit when he ultimately sees fit.
Refuse to Commit Selves
Respondents' attitudes about the attributes of God reflect this same refusal to commit oneself to a consistent system of beliefs. Thus, while most respondents (63 per cent) believed that God is all-powerful, few (40 per cent) felt that God would alter the natural course of events to answer a prayer. While most (62 per cent) believed that God is just, even more (78 per cent) felt that undeserved suffering occurs in the world. Few (32 per cent) believed in the doctrine of grace, even fewer (14 per cent) in the concept of Hell. Were one to construct a concept of God embracing all these conflicting notions, He would be so antinomical as to provide no meaning for anyone.
Such a refusal to commit oneself is repeated also in respondents' views on attendance at church or synagogue. Sixty-nine per cent of the respondents felt that "the Church (i.e., organized religion) stands for the best in human life," despite "minor errors and shortcomings," which are common to "all human institutions." The smallest percentage--3--considered the church "the one sure and infallible foundation of civilized life." Thus, again, the way is left open to view organized religion in an independent manner, the student regulating it rather than the other way round. For while the Church may "stand for" the best in human life, it does not compel obedience to its laws as the way to achieve the best in human life, and since it is a human institution, it can imply as much obedience as such other human institutions as the state, the school, or the corporation. This view of the Church as a useful adjunct to religion but not at all necessary is borne out in several other places in the poll. Only 23 per cent of present believers considered "active connection with a church or synagogue as essential to my religious life"; the same percentage attended religious services weekly. A great majority of students indicated that they attended religious services more at home than at Harvard, which leads to another frequently-discussed matter, the influence of Harvard on student religious thought and practice.
College Influence Slight
One comes to the puzzling conclusion, on the basis of this poll, that Harvard really does not have a great influence on students' religious ideas. Of the 65 per cent who had experienced a reaction to the religious tradition in which they were raised, only 21 per cent reacted against it while at Harvard, nearly three-quarters in their freshman year. The majority of the respondents (62 per cent) reacted in secondary school. Those whom Harvard had affected indicated the major reason for the change to be "increased thinking about religion and other related problems." Courses, reading in religion and philosophy, and influence of friends played far less important roles. Thus, while doubtless the Harvard atmosphere of increased examination of all questions was a great influence, one may also say that this atmosphere is formed by highly introspective students, who have reached a high degree of introspection upon admission to Harvard.
Furthermore, 74 per cent of all respondents did not belong to any of the local religious fellowships--Hillel, Newman Club, Canterbury, etc. This fact, along with the high percentage of those who attend church more at home than at Harvard, give further indication of the individual nature of religion among at least those responding to this poll. There is a divergence here between religious thought and religious practice, where church attendance is regarded as secondary to theological speculation. This physical separation from the centers of religious gathering encourages eclecticism and free choice among religious doctrines, and is considered by most observers, local ministers included, to be rather a good thing. "Interest in religion here is keen and sharp," the Rev. Richard E. Mumma of the First Congregational Church has asserted, "one uses his head as much as anything else in being religious." A similar view was expressed by the Rev. Ronald D. Maitland, Acting Chaplain of Christ Church (Episcopal): "It's a very good thing that there is less interest in religion (as opposed to faith or theology); our whole tradition is against institutional religion." Ministers generally feel that although students may prefer intellectual religion to the traditional church-going type, they will return to their church-going faith after they leave Harvard, and these clerics are not concerned about collegiate deviance.
Meaningful Faith
All this is fine for encouraging students to develop an independent religion for themselves in which they can find fulfillment and self-transcendence, the criterion which all meaningful religions must fulfill. And if the religion which students have found for themselves at