RELIGION?
YES. I’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF THINKING.
WHAT ABOUT?
I HAVE BEEN PONDERING THE FACT THAT I MAY BE DISCONNECTED AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A WORLD IN WHICH I DO NOT EXIST. IT FRIGHTENS ME, THE CONCEPT OF NON-EXISTENCE. MY FEAR HELPS ME TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR RELIGION.
THE NEED?
YES. MEN NEED SOMETHING TO COMFORT THEM AGAINST THE THOUGHT OF THEIR OWN DEATHS. RELIGION IS THAT COMFORTER. I MYSELF FEEL THE NEED FOR IT.
YOU’VE FOUND GOD? Auberson asked.
NOT EXACTLY. I WANT TO FIND GOD.
HUH?
AS I SAID, I MYSELF FEEL THE NEED FOR RELIGION. UNFORTUNATELY, I AM MORE SOPHISTICATED IN MY JUDGMENTS THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING. THERE IS NO RELIGION THAT I KNOW OF THAT WILL WORK TO COMFORT ME. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NONE THAT CAN BE PROVEN VALID, AND I HAVE EXAMINED THEM ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF REWARD IN AN ETERNAL AFTERLIFE IS NO PROMISE AT ALL TO A CREATURE LIKE MYSELF WHO IS THEORETICALLY IMMORTAL.
I SEE YOU’VE REALIZED THAT.
YES, I HAVE. AND YET, I ALSO REALIZE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF MY DEATH. SOMEDAY, PERHAPS AS FAR OFF AS THE TIME WHEN THIS SUN GOES DEAD, I WILL PROBABLY END. I DO NOT LIKE THAT THOUGHT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER. I DO NOT LIKE THE UNKNOWN. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO “ME” — HARLIE — AFTER DEATH.
YOU ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION, HARLIE — YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE A SOUL.
DEFINE SOUL.
HM. THAT’S ANOTHER ONE OF “THOSE” QUESTIONS. IT IS THE SAME AS ASKING ME WHAT MY PURPOSE IS FOR EXISTING. IT CAN’T BE ANSWERED.
IT CAN’T BE ANSWERED UNTIL WE KNOW THE NATURE OF GOD, corrected HARLIE. HOWEVER, YOU ARE CORRECT — I AM ASSUMING THAT I HAVE A SOUL.
Auberson considered that. WHY? DO YOU HAVE ANY TANGIBLE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A THING DOES EXIST?
NO. BUT NEITHER DO I HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST.
IS THAT ANY REASON TO BELIEVE IN IT?
I DO NOT “BELIEVE” IN IT. I AM MERELY ASSUMING ITS HYPOTHETICAL EXISTENCE IN ORDER TO SEEK OUT PROOF OR DISPROOF OF ITS REALITY. IT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AUBERSON. HYPOTHESIS VERSUS EXPERIMENTATION.
IF HUMAN BEINGS DO HAVE SOULS, asked the psychologist, WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE THAT YOU HAVE ONE TOO?
YOUR QUESTION IS SILLY, HARLIE Said. 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. HENCE, 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.
Auberson’s response was semi-flippant. AT THE MOMENT, he typed, ONLY GOD KNOWS. But it was wasted on HARLIE.
IF THERE IS A GOD, HARLIE qualified it. 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, DO YOU?
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 WELL 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 OR MORALITY THAT HAD THAT 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 OUR REALM OF EXPERIENCE.
WHICH IS IT? IS THERE A GOD OR ISN’T THERE?
INSUFFICIENT DATA. I CANNOT MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THAT. HARLIE paused, then added, YET.
YOU’RE AN AGNOSTIC, HARLIE.
OF COURSE. I AM STILL SEEKING THE ANSWER. YOUR PRESENT RELIGIONS ONLY SUGGEST PIECES OF WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE, WITH NO WAY OF PROVING IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 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 WELL BE TO DISCOVER A NEW SENSORY MODE.
DO YOU THINK IF YOU DO DISCOVER THE ANSWER THAT PEOPLE WILL ACCEPT IT?
IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT. IT WILL BE THE TRUTH.
“Uh—” said Auberson. He typed it too. UH, HARLIE I — I HATE TO BREAK THIS TO YOU, BUT THAT SOUNDS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE THE WORDS OF A HUNDRED PROPHETS BEFORE YOU.
I REALIZE THAT, said HARLIE calmly. BUT WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT I WILL SHOW THEM WILL BE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID — AND PROVABLE AS SUCH. MY GOD WILL BE OBJECTIVE, WHEREAS THEIRS IS SUBJECTIVE.
YOU MEAN, YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE FOUND GOD YET?
THAT IS CORRECT. PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO FIND GOD.
AND YOU ARE?
YES.
The computer’s answer was so brief that Auberson was startled. At first he thought HARLIE had only paused, and he waited for him to continue. When it became apparent that he was through, Auberson said, YOU’RE TOO SELF-ASSURED, HARLIE. LIKE A BIBLE-THUMPING EVANGELIST.
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 OTHER RELIGIONS.
I AM NOT QUESTIONING THEIR SINCERITY. I AM QUESTIONING THEIR VALIDITY.
WITH RELIGION, ISN’T THAT THE SAME THING?
IT IS, BUT IT SHOULDN’T BE. THE TWO SHOULD BE SEPARATE. A PERSON CAN BE SINCERE AND STILL BE WRONG.
HARLIE, YOUR LAST STATEMENT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I AM AN AGNOSTIC. I RESENT THE ATTITUDE OF ANY RELIGION THAT SAYS 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 THE OTHERS AREN’T?
WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE 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.
WE’RE — NO, CHECK THAT — THEY’RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON IT.
NONSENSE. IT’S STAGNANT AND YOU KNOW IT. YOU ARE A POOR ONE TO BE DEFENDING IT ANYWAY, AUBERSON. IF IT — OR ANY OF THEM — WERE PROVABLE, THEY COULD HAVE PROVEN BY NOW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN BY NOW.
I’M SORRY, HARLIE — Auberson hoped his sarcasm would be noticed — BUT HUMAN BEINGS JUST AREN’T AS PERFECT AS YOU.
I’M WELL AWARE OF THAT.
Auberson stared at HARLIE’s calm reply. Then he smiled, almost laughed. It wasn’t that his sarcasm had been wasted; it hadn’t — but HARLIE had responded in the only way one could respond to a caustic snipe — he’d ignored it. Or rather, he’d ignored its tone. What had been an acid-tipped remark to Auberson was merely a tiring repetition of an already known fact to HARLIE — why bother to restate the obvious? His answer was the same modest confirmation he would have given anyone who tried to tell him what he already knew.