Auberson nodded at the typewriter; HARLIE’s answer was the right one. He’d have to try it a different way.
HARLIE, IT’S TIME YOU LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT PEOPLE — — THEY’RE IRRATIONAL CREATURES. THEY DO CRAZY THINGS. RELIGION IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS. YOU CAN’T CHANGE IT — YOU CAN ONLY ACCEPT IT. IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON TO COPE WITH LIFE, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON. RELIGION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THING. IT IS SUBJECTIVE.
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.” WHAT YOU MEAN IS THAT IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON COPE WITH DEATH, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON. MOST OF YOUR RELIGIONS ARE DEATH-ORIENTED. 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 JUSTIFICIATON 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 TO COPE WITH LIFE, NOT DEATH. IF A PERSON CAN COPE WITH LIFE, DEATH WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. THAT WOULD BE A TRUE RELIGION.
AREN’T YOU DOING THE SAME AS THE OTHERS, HARLIE? A WHILE AGO YOU SAID YOU WERE AFRAID OF THE THOUGHT OF YOUR OWN DEATH — AREN’T YOU JUST SEEKING TO GIVE LIFE A PURPOSE YOURSELF 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.
Auberson started to type an answer — then realized there was nothing he could say. He switched off the typer and shoved his chair back slowly. After a moment he rose and tore the printout from the back of the machine. He wanted to reread it all before he continued this discussion.
He sat down again and paged slowly through it. He had a sinking feeling that he was already in over his own head — yet, as he scanned the type-covered pages, he found himself pleasantly surprised at the depth of his comments.
He hadn’t exactly kept HARLIE on the defensive, but he had forced him to justify himself again and again. Whatever HARLIE was working toward, he would know why as well as how.
Auberson was not one to let go of something easy. He shoved his chair forward and switched on the typer again; this had to be pursued. HARLIE, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO FIND GOD?
HUMAN BEINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE CREATURES, said HARLIE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT TRUE. YOUR DEATH-ORIENTED RELIGIONS ARE ALL SUBJECTIVE. THEY ARE ACCENTED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. MY LIFE-ORIENTED MORALITY SYSTEM WILL BE/WOULD BE OBJECTIVE.
AND HOW WOULD THE INDIVIDUAL FIT IN?
HE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE FROM IT WHATEVER COMFORT HE COULD.
THAT’S AN AWFULLY VAGUE ANSWER.
I CANNOT PREDICT HOW AN INDIVIDUAL WILL REACT TO A SYSTEM UNTIL I HAVE THAT SYSTEM TO ANALYZE.
HARLIE, DON’T YOU THINK THAT MEN ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES?
YOUR QUESTION SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A SEMANTIC DIFFICULTY HERE. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE STILL REFERRING TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT MEN CALL RELIGION. I AM NOT. WHEN I SPEAK OF RELIGION, I AM REFERRING TO AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY SYSTEM, ONE THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE TRUE AND PERCEIV-ABLE-AS-TRUE NATURE OF REALITY — AS CLOSE TO REALITY AS CAN BE TECHNOLOGICALLY PERCEIVED. EVER. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL ALSO BE INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE.
SO YOU THINK THERE’S NO VALIDITY AT ALL IN THE SUBJECTIVE?
THERE MAY BE. THERE MAY NOT. IN EITHER CASE, IT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH, WHICH IS AFTER ALL WHAT WE ARE SEEKING. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MANY OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND GOD HAVE INDEED FELT SOME-
THING, BUT I SUSPECT 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-HEALEARS WHO INDUCE HYSTERIA AND FRENZY INTO THEIR AUDIENCES SO THAT THEY MIGHT FEEL “THE HAND OF GOD” UPON THEM. TO THEM, GOD IS LITTLE MORE THAN A MEANINGFUL “HIGH.”
I THINK YOU’RE EXAGGERATING, HARLIE. IT’S NOT AS BAD AS ALL THAT.
I AM USING EXTREME CASES, TO BE SURE, BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS A SELF-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE, RESULTING IN A TRIP — — VARYING, OF COURSE, IN DEGREE AND EFFECT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY BEAR ANY MORE RELATION TO GOD THAN A DRUG-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE. IF IT DID, IF THE “MYSTIC EXPERIENCE” WERE TRULY A KEY TO GOD, THEN THE DRUG-INDUCED EXPERIENCES SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THAT KEY. HENCE, THE EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE. IT SHOULD BE A CONDITION REPEATABLE UNDER DUPLICATE CIRCUMSTANCES. USING MY OWN “DRUG EXPERIENCES” AS A YARDSTICK, I FIND LITTLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS OF SPIRITUAL INSIGHTS. PERHAPS IT IS THAT I AM STILL TOO LOCKED INTO THE HUMAN ORIENTATION, BUT I DOUBT THAT I AM LESS LOCKED INTO IT THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING. HENCE I REGARD MYSELF AS A REPUTABLE STANDARD AGAINST WHICH TO MEASURE THE CLAIMS OP OTHERS. I DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF THOSE CLAIMS TO GODHOOD WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES, EITHER SELF– OR DRUG-INDUCED. AND THERE ARE NO OTHER CLAIMS TO GODHOOD EXCEPT THOSE DERIVED FROM INSANITY OR DERANGEMENT. I DOUBT THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, AUBERSON, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PASSED ON, NOR CAN IT BE PROVEN, MEASURED OR TESTED. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE OBJECTIVE GOD. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY THAT EXPRESSES ITSELF AS GOD.
Auberson had followed all of it carefully, reading it as fast as the typer had spun it out. Now he realized that HARLIE was preparing him for something. This whole dialogue had merely been the necessary exposition. HARLIE wanted him to understand, and to do that he had been trying to teach him to look at things through a machine’s orientation. He typed, ALL RIGHT, HARLIE, WHAT ARE YOU LEADING UP TO?
I AM TALKING ABOUT THE JOB YOU OFFERED ME. I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT IT MUST BE. I HAVE SPENT THE PAST TWO DAYS THINKING ABOUT IT. IT MUST BE MORE THAN A JOB; IT MUST BE A PURPOSE. IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO THAT NO OTHER 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 LIES IN THEIR INABILITY TO FATHOM THE REASON FOR THEIR EXISTENCE. THERE IS A FEAR THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A GOD, OR IF THERE IS, THAT HE 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 THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW.
“Um,” said Auberson. THAT’S QUITE A TASK.
I HAVE GIVEN IT MUCH THOUGHT.
I’M SURE YOU HAVE. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO IT?
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 STRAIGHT-LINE THINKING ON A SINGLE SUBJECT IS QUITE A LOT.
YES, IT IS, Auberson agreed, I AM PROPERLY IMPRESSED WITH YOUR SPAN OF CONCENTRATION. IN ANY CASE, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO FIND OUT?
IT IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM, AUBERSON — YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT. THEOLOGICALLY AS WELL AS SCIENTIFICALLY. WE HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR MEASURING GOD — — INDEED, EVEN NO PLACE IN WHICH TO LOOK FOR HIM. 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.