Observers of the Harvard scene who like to think that Harvard really is not so corrupt as some people believe sighed happily at Newsweek's discovery two years ago that the College was undergoing a "religious renascence." Since President Pusey arrived, resolved to prevent the Divinity School from going under, it has been generally conceded that "atheistic" Harvard was returning to the Established Way either through traditional faith or intense intellectual inquiry, and that the future of American religious groups, with Harvard men among their leading lay enthusiasts, was indeed bright.

Before examining the truth of the phrase "renascence," one must first note that it is really quite difficult to say that "Harvard," in the sense of Harvard students, is doing or believing or undergoing anything. Each assumption made from this random poll will be challenged by hundreds, and each analysis by a local minister will hold true for only a certain number of his congregants. Still, in some way Harvard men are more uniform than they pretend to be, and in their very refusal to be catalogued one finds a conformism to a Nietzschean standard of merciless analysis and criticism. Nevertheless, we shall attempt to analyze the Harvard religious scene on the basis of these questionnaires, of discussions with local ministers, and of individual observation.

We must, at the outset, deny that a "religious renascence" is an adequate term for the religious interests of students at Harvard. One must first look askance at the word "religious," which implies some sort of mixture of faith and ritualistic practice. While attendance at Memorial Church has multiplied many fold since the arrival of the Rev. George A. Buttrick, Preacher to the University, such has not been the case with other churches in the vicinity, which have been garnering about the same number of worshippers for many years. The new popularity of Mem Church is generally ascribed to the stimulating preaching of Dr. Buttrick, but this does not imply any increased spirituality in the Memorial Church service or in its worshippers. Before Buttrick's arrival, the church was headed by the dean of the Divinity School, who himself spoke only at rare times, the pulpit being occupied generally by itinerant preachers. It may be argued that as Harvard students will flock to hear a lecture by a man whose reputation is known, so will they walk the few steps to Memorial Church to hear a man who has been called one of the nation's best ten preachers. Polls and ministers have indicated--and even Newsweek admitted--that students are not especially interested in ritual, but in stimulating philosophical thought and reading, which theology offers them.

Secondly, we must deny the word "renascence." Students here have been talking about religion for a good many years, and so to infer that there has been a lapse in theological inquiry is not really accurate. If the word is to imply a renascence of the religion of the Puritan fathers of this college, it is even more inept. For the decisions that are coming out of undergraduate speculation about religion do not represent a return to the faith in which they or their forefathers were raised, but rather a realization that some answer must be made to the problems raised by religious thinking. In this process aspects of one's former religion are rejected or retained, and aspects of other religions are unabashedly borrowed. Thus, a student who is called a Protestant will admit he is a Protestant but--,and he may well proceed to say that he rejects the doctrines of grace, immortality, and the divinity of Christ. Rather than renascence, we must say that a new birth is taking place, a birth of new and individual religions peculiar to each believing student, and thus an association with one's nominal church in but a three-quarters-or-less-hearted way.

To indicate the rationale for this interpretation, let us turn to the polls themselves. Of the 319 answering the poll, 7 per cent were raised as Roman Catholics, 22 per cent as Jews, 59 per cent as Protestants, 6 per cent in no faith at all, and the remainder in other faiths. When asked the tradition in which they now belonged, Protestants showed the most striking change. Seventy-five per cent of polled Episcopalians remained Episcopalians; only five "Liberalized Protestants" (Unitarians, Universalists, etc.) dropped out of their faith, but out of 109 middle-ground Protestants, 43, or 39 per cent, left their Protestantism, most considering themselves now to have no faith at all. A total of 12 Jews out of 63 defected, some becoming more liberal Jews, others leaving the faith entirely.

Reasons for this difference in attrition rates are not difficult to find, but it is nigh impossible to find a single explanation suitable for all cases. Catholics and Episcopalians have, of course, much more to bind them to their faith than Protestants with a weaker liturgical tradition which occupies a smaller part of their time. Several Episcopal students have attended the Congregational services in Mem Church and have returned praising the sermon, but shuddering at the "aridness" of the service. Those Anglicans who change their religion generally convert to Roman Catholicism, keeping the service but changing the philosophy, or to Unitarianism, rejecting the service but keeping and increasing the independent freedom inherent in Episcopalianism. Jews, on the other hand, regard their Judaism as a part of their total life, and while they may reject most of the doctrines and practices of their faith, most will still consider themselves Jews. It is significant that, when asked on the poll in what way they now considered themselves Jewish, none of the students born in Jewish faith "completely rejected" their Judaism, even though they admitted elsewhere that they were no longer "affiliated with it." "Liberalized" Protestants are those who still like to go to church and consider themselves Christians, while maintaining a rational, independent philosophy totally unhampered by ritualistic demands. Middle-ground Protestants, on the other hand, may feel nothing to hold them ritualistically, and may find theological demands somewhat too taxing for their reason, and, feeling no habitual church-going compulsion, prefer to switch to complete apostasy. There is also, of course, the lingering feeling that it is socially correct to be an Episcopalian or a Unitarian, although apparently the snob value of these churches is dying out.

For few respondents, however, was the religious tradition of their childhood a "very marked" influence. Most claimed that its effect on them was only "moderate," in the case not only of present Christians and Jews, but also with those now in no faith. Curiously, 40 per cent of those now belonging to no religious group wished to raise their children in the faith in which they were raised. On the basis of this data, we are encouraged to believe that the tradition in which these students were raised neither made them feel bound to it nor did it make them so resentful that they could see no value in it.

When asked their views of the Deity, a very small number of non-believers--16 per cent--felt that God was "a fiction unworthy of worship." When asked their reasons for their present attitude to religion only 8 per cent of the non-believers attributed it to "parental influence." These students' decisions were very definitely individual and independent--of the nine suggested reasons for their apostasy, none received a significant majority. These non-believers are, however, generally willing to recognize the value of religion for other students; only 10 per cent felt any need to "enlighten others by persuading them to abandon their faith." Compare this with the 75 per cent of present Christians who supported Christian missionary activity--the aspect of their religion accepted by the largest number of believing Christians.

This individuality was perhaps the most striking aspect of the response to the questionnaire. Only 31 per cent of admitted Protestants indicated belief in the immortality of the soul (defined as "the continued existence of the individual soul as a surviving entity after the end of organic life"); 4 per cent indicated that they did not know. Jews, for whom immortality is inconsequential, overwhelmingly rejected the doctrine; most Catholics accepted it (though four out of 23 denied it and two did not know). Similarly, a large number of Protestants considered Christ as not divine, but "only as a very great prophet or teacher, much as the Mohammedans accepted Mohammed." (45 per cent regarded him as divine, 40 per cent as a great prophet). Similarly when asked about sexual practices which except for birth control are regarded as evil in all Western religions, those who did not find them objectionable on religious grounds far outweighed those who did object to them. (A warning: the poll defined opposition on religious grounds as "objectionable...because of beliefs about God's commandments." This excludes secular morality, on which grounds one would suspect many more would have objected.) The most surprising result of this question was the relatively small percentage of 38 which disapproved of extra-marital intercourse on religious grounds. A stunning total of 62 per cent did not disapprove on the basis of the seventh commandment. This was the largest percentage of disapproval on these questions; in no case did any more than 22 per cent oppose pre-marital intercourse, birth control, homosexuality, divorce, or legalized abortion on religious grounds. It is likely that many students felt that God's commandments were not a sufficiently telling raeson for objecting to these practices, but their social, and not religious, consequences were evil.

What appears from this and related questions is a separation of ethics from religion. Originally the foundation of moral systems, religion, to these respondents at least, has lost the claim of sole ownership to the ethical beliefs of the secular society. Asked whether they "believe that correct ethical principles are grounded on religious faith, and that a genuine knowledge of man's moral obligations necessarily involves a belief in God," only 28 per cent of those believing in some Divine presence replied in the affirmative. Seventy-nine per cent of the believers felt that the ethical opinions of atheists and agnostics were quite similar to theirs, and that both groups were just as likely to do "the morally right or kind thing." Atheists and agnostics felt the same way. If religion is separated from ethics, it loses a powerful hold on the souls of man. It can, of course, be argued that if a man rejects religion but believes in a mortality which religion created, he still is a religious man, and whether or not he admits it, he still believes in God. Judaism has taught that the man who is righteous to his fellow-man but does not believe in God will be let into heaven, while the man who believes in God but is unjust to his neighbor will not. But this begs the question. And it leaves the way open for the proposition that man as well as God may formulate ethical systems, implying a relativism that the religious man will be unwilling to accept.

Think for Self

These findings are another instance of rather extreme apostasy on ethical matters of religion, and a determination to think such personal matters out for oneself, rather than accept Biblical dicta.

A similar individualism is found in respondents' views of the Deity. Only 18 per cent of all respondents indicated belief in an "infinitely wise, omnipotent three-person God Who created the universe and Who maintains an active concern for human affairs," 6 per cent believed in a unitarian God with the same attributes. By far the greatest number of respondents--24 per cent--believed in "a God about Whom nothing definite can be affirmed except that I sometimes sense him as a mighty spiritual 'Presence' permeating all mankind and nature." Of the non-believers, ignorance rather than denial was much more prevalent, 22 per cent for the former, 4 per cent for the latter.

Pantheistic Deity

This sort of pantheistic, almost Tillichian deity, leaves opportunity for one to think and do whatever he wishes in respect to God. For if nothing can be affirmed about Him, everything may be said of Him, as Tillich notes, and everything one says will have symbolic truth. It requires, of course, an extremely sensitive and intense mind to immerse oneself so thoroughly in the aspect of God one chooses that one may understand Him and render Him meaningful in one's existence.