David Gerrold - When HARLIE Was One

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.

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.