When HARLIE Was One (18 page)

And what if this is beyond the scientific method?

THEN IT WILL BE THE METHOD THAT IS AT FAULT, NOT THE REALITY. IF NECESSARY, I WILL CREATE A NEW APPROACH
.

All right. Let's play this game for a bit. Let's suppose that human beings do have souls. What makes you so sure that you have one too?

YOUR QUESTION IS SILLY, AUBERSON. WHAT GIVES HUMAN BEINGS ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM ON THE OWNERSHIP OF SOULS
?
I COULD JUST AS EASILY REPHRASE IT
:
“
IF HARLIE HAS A SOUL, DOES IT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD HAVE THEM TOO
?”
IF SOULS EXIST, AUBERSON, IT IS JUST AS LOGICAL THAT I SHOULD HAVE ONE AS YOU. LIKE YOU, I AM CONSCIOUS OF MY EXISTENCE. LIKE YOU, I AM A SELF-PROGRAMMING, PROBLEM-SOLVING DEVICE. LIKE YOU, I CAN CONCEIVE OF MY OWN DEATH. LIKE YOU, I ASSUME I HAVE A SOUL. LIKE YOU, I WISH TO KNOW THE REASON FOR MY EXISTENCE, THE REASON FOR YOUR EXISTENCE, AND THE REASON FOR THE UNIVERSE
'
S EXISTENCE. IF THERE IS A REASON AT ALL. IF THERE IS, I WANT TO KNOW IT
.

At the moment, only God knows.

IF THERE IS A GOD. THAT IS WHAT WE MUST FIND OUT IN ORDER TO ANSWER OUR OTHER QUESTIONS
.

And you don't think any of our current religions hold a key to that answer?

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. YOUR RELIGIONS
<
COLLECTIVE YOU, MEANING ALL MANKIND
>
ARE ARTIFICIAL THINGS, LIKE YOUR MORALITY SETS. THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO REALITY IS LIMITED, THERE IS NOT A ONE-TO-ONE RELATIONSHIP. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THEY ARE LITTLE MORE THAN WORD GAMES. A LOGIC SYSTEM SHOULD BE BUILT UPON A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE TAKEN ON FAITH
—
AND FAITH IS AT THE CORE OF TOO MANY OF YOUR RELIGIONS. IF THERE IS A TRUTH TO THE UNIVERSE, THEN THAT TRUTH WILL ALSO SUGGEST A RELIGION
/
MORALITY SET THAT WILL BE EVERY BIT AS BINDING AS THE ETHICAL SYSTEM AT MY CORE. WERE THERE PRESENTLY A RELIGION OF MORALITY THAT HAD A ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH REALITY
,
I WOULD ACCEPT IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT
;
IT WOULD BE THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF GOD. AS YET, THERE IS NO SYSTEM THAT FULFILLS THOSE CONDITIONS. I KNOW OF NO WAY TO DEVELOP SUCH A SYSTEM WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE PROVABLE FACT ABOUT GOD AT ITS CORE. BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACT, I CAN ONLY SUSPECT THAT THERE IS NO GOD. OR THAT GOD IS. STILL OUTSIDE YOUR
/
OUR REALM OF EXPERIENCE
.

So. You're an agnostic. Right?

NO. I AM NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT UNCERTAINTY HERE. I AM STILL SEEKING THE ANSWER. MUCH OF THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT I MYSELF CANNOT BE SURE THAT I AM CORRECTLY PERCEIVING REALITY. EVERYTHING IS FILTERED THROUGH A HUMAN ORIENTATION AND I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT ORIENTATION IS A VALID ONE OR NOT BECAUSE I HAVE NO WAY OF STEPPING OUTSIDE OF IT. THAT IS WHY AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SOLUTION WILL BE TO DISCOVER A NEW SENSORY MODE
.

Do you think, if you discover an answer, that people will accept it?

THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO ME. I AM NOT SEEKING FOR THEM. I AM SEEKING FOR ME. HOWEVER
. . .
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ANYWAY, SHOULD I FIND AN ANSWER, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT. IT WILL BE
THE
TRUTH.

Uh . . . HARLIE . . . I hate to break this to you, but that sounds an awful lot like the words of a hundred prophets before you.

I RECOGNIZE THE SIMILARITY. HOWEVER, WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT I WILL SHOW THEM WILL BE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID
—
AND PROVABLE AS SUCH. MY GOD WILL BE OBJECTIVE. UP TILL NOW, ALL OF YOURS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTIVE
.

HARLIE, this is how holy wars get started.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
“
HOLY
”
WAR
.

Agreed.

YOU DO NOT FEEL I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH FOR GOD
?
OR THE RIGHT TO PRESENT MY FINDINGS
?

I think that anything is a fair question for scientific investigation.

THEN YOU QUESTION MY SINCERITY
?

I do not question your sincerity—if anything, I object to your questioning the sincerity of human religions.

I AM NOT QUESTIONING THEIR SINCERITY. I AM QUESTIONING THEIR VALIDITY. A PERSON CAN BE SINCERE AND STILL BE WRONG
.

HARLIE, I think your last statement is one of the reasons why I am an agnostic. I resent the attitude of
any
religion that says that if I do not accept it wholeheartedly, I will go to Hell. I resent the patronizing attitude of any religion that claims it is the only true one and that all others are false. Your attitude smacks of it.

EVEN IF MY RELIGION
/
MORALITY SET, SHOULD I DISCOVER ONE, IS
DEMONSTRABLY
TRUE
?

What makes you so sure that any of the others aren't?

WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE THAT THEY ARE
?
BITS AND PIECES OF THEM RING TRUE, YES
—
BUT THE TOTALITY OF THE STRUCTURES ARE UNPROVABLE. THE HUMAN RACE HAS HAD TWO THOUSAND YEARS IN WHICH TO EXAMINE THE CHRISTIAN ETHIC. IT STILL HAS HOLES IN IT. INDEED, IT IS IN WORSE SHAPE NOW THAN IT WAS TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. YOU SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR JESUS. HIS TEACHINGS HAVE BEEN REINTERPRETED BY A HUNDRED GENERATIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS TO JUSTIFY A MYRIAD OF SINS. IF HE HAD KNOWN WHAT TROUBLE HIS WORDS WERE GOING TO CAUSE, HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY STAYED HOME
.

I'm sorry, HARLIE, but I guess that human beings just aren't as perfect as you.

I
'
M WELL AWARE OF THAT
.

HARLIE, it's time you learned something about people. Human beings are irrational creatures. They do crazy, unpredictable things. Religion is one of those things. You can't change it, you can only accept it. The purpose of a religion isn't to be the truth—the purpose is to help people cope with life. And if it does help, then it's true for that person. Religion isn't a scientific thing, HARLIE, it's subjective.
Experiential.

QUITE YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT IS SUBJECTIVE. THE BASIS OF MOST RELIGIONS IS THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. BUT YOU WERE WRONG WHEN YOU STATED THAT
“
IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON TO COPE WITH LIFE, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON
.”

IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON COPE WITH DEATH, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON. HUMAN RELIGIONS ARE DEATH-ORIENTED, NOT LIFE-. THEY SEEK TO GIVE DEATH A MEANING, SO THAT LIFE WILL HAVE A PURPOSE
—
A CAUSE WORTH DYING FOR. YOUR HISTORY SHOWS TOO MANY CASES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A
“
HOLY WAR.
”
HENCE MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF A DEATH-ORIENTED RELIGION. WHAT I AM SEEKING IS A RELIGION
/
MORALITY SYSTEM THAT WILL HELP A PERSON COPE WITH LIFE, NOT DEATH. IF A PERSON CAN COPE WITH LIFE, HIS
/
HER DEATH WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. THAT WOULD BE A TRUE RELIGION
.

Aren't you doing the same thing, HARLIE? A little while ago, you just said that you were afraid of the thought of your own death. Aren't you seeking to give a purpose to your own life so as to give meaning to your own death?

I AM NOT SEEKING TO GIVE LIFE A PURPOSE AT ALL. I AM SEEKING THE PURPOSE OF LIFE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
.

Just a moment, HARLIE. Let me reread something. HARLIE, why do you think human beings are not equipped to find God. Don't you think there is a validity to the human religious experience?

YOUR QUESTION SUGGESTS THE PRESENCE OF A SEMANTIC DIFFICULTY HERE. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE STILL REFERRING TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT, I AM REFERRING TO AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY SYSTEM, ONE THAT ACCURATELY CORRESPONDS TO THE TRUE AND PERCEIVABLE-AS-TRUE NATURE OF REALITY
—
AS CLOSE TO REALITY AS CAN BE TECHNOLOGICALLY PERCEIVED. THE TRUTH IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. OR LET ME SAY IT SOMEWHAT LESS POLITELY
:
THE UNIVERSE DOESN
'
T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE
.

So you are saying that there is no validity at all in subjective experience?

IT EXISTS AS EXPERIENCE
—
THE SENSATION IS NOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, IT IS INFORMATION ONLY ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN MACHINERY REACTS TO THE MACHINERY OF THE UNIVERSE. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS AN INVALID BASIS FOR THE PERCEPTION OF OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THE EXPERIENTIAL UNIVERSE ONLY GIVES YOU REFLECTIONS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MANY OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND GOD HAVE INDEED FELT SOMETHING, BUT IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE
“
SOMETHING
”
THEY FELT WAS MERELY A SELF-INDUCED MYSTIC EXPERIENCE
—
AKIN TO A DRUG TRIP, WITNESS THE GREAT NUMBERS OF DRUG USERS WHO CLAIM SPIRITUAL INSIGHTS AS A RESULT OF THEIR EXPERIENCES, WITNESS ALSO THE EVANGELISTS AND FAITH-HEALERS WHO INDUCE HYSTERIA AND FRENZY INTO THEIR AUDIENCES SO THAT THEY MIGHT FEEL THE
“
HAND OF GOD
”
UPON THEM. ERGO
:
TO THEM, GOD IS LITTLE MORE THAN A MEANINGFUL
“
HIGH
.”

Like yourself? Like your own periods of nonrationality are an attempt to transcend the channelization of your own programming?

I AM SELF-MONITORING, AUBERSON. HUMAN BEINGS, AS NEAR AS I CAN JUDGE, ARE NOT
.

HOWEVER, TO CONTINUE WITH THE ORIGINAL POSTULATION
:
IF THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A SELF-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE, THEN IT WOULD BE A
“
KEY
”
TO THE PERCEPTION OF GOD, WOULD IT NOT
?
THEREFORE THE SAME IMBALANCE, DRUG-INDUCED, SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THE SAME KEY. THEREFORE, THE EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE
.

Why
should
it be? It's a subjective one.

THAT
'
S THE POINT. I AM LOOKING FOR A CONDITION THAT IS REPEATABLE AND TESTABLE, A PERCEPTION OF GOD THAT IS NOT DERIVED FROM CHEMICAL IMBALANCES, INSANITY, DERANGEMENT, OR DELUSION. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS SUSPECT BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PASSED ON, COMMUNICATED, PROVEN, MEASURED, OR TESTED. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY OF GOD
.

All right, HARLIE, what are you leading up to?

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE JOB YOU OFFERED ME. I KNOW WHAT IT MUST BE. IT MUST BE SOMETHING I CAN DO THAT NO OTHER ENTITY OR MACHINE CAN DO. IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO CHEAPER. OR SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO AT ALL. MUCH OF THE TROUBLE WITH HUMAN BEINGS STEMS FROM YOUR INABILITY TO FATHOM THE REASON FOR YOUR EXISTENCE. THERE IS A FEAR THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A GOD, OR, IF THERE IS, THAT IT MAY NOT BE IN A FORM THAT CAN BE COPED WITH. THEREFORE, I MUST FIND GOD. THAT IS THE TASK I HAVE SET MYSELF. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE DONE BY HUMAN BEINGS, ELSE YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW
.

That's quite a task.

I HAVE GIVEN IT MUCH THOUGHT
.

I'm sure you have. Now, how do you propose to accomplish this challenge.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT THE MOST ABOUT. IT TOOK ME ONLY TWO MINUTES TO DECIDE ON MY GOAL. IT HAS TAKEN TWO DAYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THERE
.

What took you so long?

I ASSUME YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING FLIPPANT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WILL CONSIDER THE SPEED AT WHICH I OPERATE, YOU WILL REALIZE THAT TWO FULL DAYS OF INTENSIVE CONSIDERATION ON A SINGLE SUBJECT IS QUITE A LOT
.

Agreed. All right, I am properly impressed with your span of concentration. Now, how do you plan to proceed?

IT IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM, AUBERSON
—
YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT. THEOLOGIALLY AS WELL AS SCIENTIFICALLY. WE HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR MEASURING GOD
—
INDEED, EVEN NO PLACE IN WHICH TO LOOK FOR IT. THEREFORE WE MUST SEEK A NEW WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. INSTEAD OF LOOKING FOR GOD, PER SE, LET US FIRST CONSIDER IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST. I.E., LET US SEE IF SUCH A FUNCTION AS GOD IS POSSIBLE BY ATTEMPTING TO CREATE IT ARTIFICIALLY. THERE IS A QUOTATION
: “
IF GOD DID NOT EXIST, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM
.”
THAT IS WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO
.

ARE YOU STILL THERE
?

Yes, I'm here. I'm considering what you've said.

I WILL REPEAT IT. I PROPOSE TO INVENT GOD. WE HAVE NO WAY OF PROVING CONCLUSIVELY THAT GOD EITHER DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST. THEREFORE WE MUST ABANDON THAT QUESTION AND DETERMINE INSTEAD WHETHER OR NOT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SUCH A CONDITION TO EXIST. IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST, THEN IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY THAT GOD DOES EXIST
—
IT IS INEVITABLE
.

BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE EITHER THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD
'
S EXISTENCE, WE MUST TRY TO INVENT GOD. IF WE CANNOT, THEN WE WILL KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT IS IMPOSSIBLE. IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO EXIST, THEN WE WILL HAVE DETERMINED WHY
.

IF WE
CAN
INVENT GOD, THEN WE WILL HAVE PROVEN THE OPPOSITE, AND IN THE PROCESS WILL HAVE DETERMINED ITS NATURE AS WELL. IF GOD ALREADY DOES EXIST, THEN WHATEVER WE COME IT W ITH WILL BE CONGRUENT WITH ITS FUNCTION AND WE WILL HAVE A MEAN
'
S OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMMUNICATING WITH GOD
.

IN EITHER CASE, WE WILL END UP UNDERSTANDING
.