Life of Pi
discussion
Is this book meant to make you believe in God?
message 1:
by
Shula
(last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Nov 11, 2007 04:18PM
Is the story a beautiful tale that gives us faith in the unbelievable or is it the story of how humanity makes up a fairytale of God, a web of meaning, to cope with the horrors around us? I can't recall exactly how the book ended..was it ambiguous around this theme?
reply
|
flag
i just finished the book and was fairly disappointed. i know the book has caused many to believe in God and i have a friend who became an atheist, directly he says because of this book. i found it to really leave out the importance of God and religion to the character, Pi, after the first part of the book. While on the raft, Pi uses religious ritual more as a way to pass time then a way to cope. He doesn't yearn for God the way he yearns for physiological needs like food and water. i'd like to have seen the author develop that aspect a bit more, for certain. in the end though, i think that if the book is meant to make us believe in God or not believe in God, it surely fails to engage the reader in the debate.
After a promising start this books tails away rapidly. The religious discussions at the start are interesting and thought provoking, once you get over the "no other God but me" bit why can't you be a faithful Christian and Hindu?But a few days on to the boat it lost this aspect and got really boring. I wish the first half of the book had been explored in greater depth and that I'd never even wasted th reading effort on the second half - and don't even get me started on the acidic island, hrumpf...
***Warning possible spoilers***Hm, okay. From what I remember, the end of the book centered around the question did this all really happen or was it just a hallucination? To me, this is the metaphor that equates to the question of a higher power...
And its the brilliance of it. I mean, how better to point out how we (humans) are the weavers of meaning than to create a meaningful journey that is subverted at the end?
Absolutely! I blessed God for giving me free will to be able to stop reading it early.
definitely, yes, i think this book meant to make us believe in God. i don't know why, but when read this book, i feel that god is so powerful, he create everything he wants
Although the book does provoke readers to think about God, I don't think the agenda behind the book was to convert people to believing in God. However, it may be classed as a litmus test to see whether one can really beleive and make that "leap of faith" or remain as sceptic as others.
If you chose to believe the second version of the story, you chose a world made harsh by cold facts and the cruelty of human nature. If you chose to believe the story according to Pi, you espouse a world made beautiful and meaningful by God.Since as readers we so desperately want to believe in Pi's description of the world, the story almost tricks us, showing us that a world with God is more bearable, if not more beautiful.
I didn't get any major "make people believe in god" theme at all. The theme I walked away with was more of an exploration of "what is truth?" Can something be true if it seems beyond belief? Do we require others to believe us for something to be true? If we don't think we will be believed, will we simply lie and give others a version that they can accept?(warning possible spoilers)
I also found the ending very intriguing. Did it all really happen the way Pi described? Is it too fantastic a tale for us "back in the world" to believe? Do we need to be told something we can understand and relate to in order to accept it? Also, I found the dicotomy between the animal and human tellings very interesting. With the animals, it's easier to accept as being "in their nature". But told as humans... we are horrified. Which begs the question, is our own human "nature" too close to home to accept?
As far as Pi's worship of all the religions, I felt that spoke to his curiosity above convention, and his openness/willingness to explore and search for answers wherever he might find them. The fact that it was religion made the "answers" i.e. "the truth" that much more subjective. He's not fussy. He's not too attached to any particular religion, and at the end, he's not too attached to any particular version of what happened.
Actually now that I think about it, rather than trying to get people to "believe in god", I feel like Martel leaves it to the reader to decide what to believe.
What I took on this subject, after discussing the ending with my wife was that The Narrative is God, and the Story is what matters. Notice that you don't hear the second story from Pi, you hear it from the transcript of the interview, meaning to Pi, the only experience that matters is the story he told us, it is what happened to **him**, what he experienced, whether it was coping mechanism or whatever, the "truth" is in what he felt, what he saw, and in the end that's all that matters, not what "really" happened. The sheer existence of this narrative/memory is proof of God, if you think of God as the consciousness web that humans experience....or something like that ;)
Jeremy: I think of God like that. And I think it depends on what we imagine reality to be as well. That is, is there a true reality or is reality what we decide it is. Holly: Your point of this book being about what is truth rather than what is God is well taken. For me those questions are intertwined. I think a person's world view dictates their notion of a higher power and its effect on reality, truth and one's mental organization of the events around them. The book points to something I agree with, that our perceptions color our interpretation of events; that interpretation is valuable in itself.
I don't know that it makes you believe in God, but it does help you realize what you believe. I have a very religious aunt who read this book and believed the second story, which really disturbed her. She wondered what kind of a person she was that she couldn't accept the first story. Ultimately, I got her to come around. The first story is the true one, and isn't it sad that so many people are so quick to believe the second story?
I think Martel tries to make you believe in God, but i don't think he realizes that he does the exact opposite. The book's basic statement about religion is that in the absence of factual proof, just go ahead and believe the better story. the "better story" being the one with God. I don't think he even realizes his own irony. you can't really BELIEVE in God if you know that he is just the better of two STORIES.
he also doesn't realize that, when choosing between explanations, it is not automatic that the "better story" is the one with God...it's still subjective. maybe i think that the "story" of evolution of molecules over infinite iterations of time into complex life forms is a more fascinating one than some God who simply creates everything in 7 days.
he also doesn't realize that, when choosing between explanations, it is not automatic that the "better story" is the one with God...it's still subjective. maybe i think that the "story" of evolution of molecules over infinite iterations of time into complex life forms is a more fascinating one than some God who simply creates everything in 7 days.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. " (Aristotle) Believe what your HEART tells you to. That is the most intellectual thing to do. Personally, my heart told me to believe Pi. I think that this is a story of a man who thrived in the wilderness. This is the story of a man whose deep-rooted beliefs were instrumental in the survival of his spirit. I believe that he probably did hallucinate to some extent. (He was a victim of hunger, thirst, and heat exhaustion, after all). I have to believe that God, my God, the God that I personally know and testify of, was there with Pi. I have to believe that my God would have been there for me too. Why is it that we, as Christians, quickly believe tales of miracles performed in the Bible long ago, yet are slow to believe that God still works miracles today. Could God, the Almighty, not materialize an algae island in the middle of the ocean if it were instrumental in saving a child He loved? Could God not bless a tiger with restraint? (Remember Daniel in the lions' den!) I have to believe that He could! I choose to beleive Pi's story. I beleive his reality. I thank him for sharing it.
Holly, What did you say that got her to 'come around'?
Kristen, well said! I agree with what you said about a loving God and modern miracles. I believe Pi's story and I also think this book was written to make us think about our world as a whole. We should be more open minded after reading this book not more closed minded.
Alert***End spoiler***Kristin:
I think you are correct, God is everywhere in this story and it is about faith. I see the value in his finding God, so that he could have a strong faith while at sea. I did find it interesting that he is 'saved' at the end.
I have read this book multiple times, and this thought never occurred to me. But reading this discussion, I do find that this claim haas some point. I especially agree with Uwais and some points of Shula's.
I heard Martel lecture about this book, and he did say that the book is about faith. Of course, once a writer finishes a book and it's out there in the world, his or her intentions get trumped by reader interpretation.
I have to say I was somewhat disappointed in the promise to "make you believe in God" offered at the beginning of the book, too. I loved the satire of believing in 3 different religions, and figured that once Pi was stuck in a life raft with a tiger he would review what those religions said about adversity, etc, but it didn't happen. What did happen was Pi told a story. Whether it was a story of him stuck in a life raft with a real orange and black tiger, or other people from the boat, or (a thought that occured to me several times while reading) no one but himself, Pi told a story. It was that story that kept him (and us) going. I also have to say, I enjoyed both the crazy island and the twist at the end. How else would those of you that don't have him end this story? He washes up on a tropical shore and decides to spend the rest of his life as a wild man? He washes up in a tourist town and someone gives him some clothes out of pity and he goes on to Toronto, just because? He washes up in a city and goes on the talk show circuit? It doesn't end that way because none of those endings teach him anything. Nor do they teach us anything. That's the point of telling a story, to learn something about life, and this story is the Life of Pi.
I don't think that the author wanted anyone to change their opinions at all. The book isn't really written to make people believe in God: it was what the boy believed. I think that it was written as a wider view as well. I think that God was a rather large part of the book, but I can't see why what you said i the purpose of it.
I'm annoyed by Julie's assumption that people who believe the second story are disturbed. Why can't I believe the second story and still believe in God? Why can't I believe that his faith helped him through a harrowing situation in life and God healed him from the scars it would have given him? Atrocious things happen in the world everyday and it doesn't make me believe in God any less to not want those sugarcoated. I guess the difference is that while I believe the second story, I'm not appalled that people could believe the first story and think they follow faith blindly. I think it's a matter of interpretation. The author left it open so you could make the argument either way. I don't think any interpretation is wrong.Along those same lines, I concur with most statements that it doesn't make you believe in God any more or less than you already do. Because of the rich symbolism you can find justification for any meaning. You can see the book as proclamation on miracles, as a mockery of religion, and anything in between. That's the beauty of an allegory: the meaning is rich and deep.
Levenade, his point is reverse of what you just said. His point is not about what is correct. The better story in any case is the more enjoyable one. In fact, he says that atheism is religion's "brothers and sisters of a different faith." His point is that faith is important, in some way or another. Agnosticism is what he dislikes, though. They sit and wait for something that is, inherently, without proof. Face it, neither atheism nor religion has any definite proof of anything. There is weak proof on religion's part, but absence of proof isn't proof of absence. Either way, it is a "leap of faith." Faith itself makes life colorful, faith in something, even atheism. But agnosticism is waiting for evidence that won't come. They never leap, which is Martel's point.So his question isn't "do you believe in God," it's "do you believe in something, on either side." Levenade, you say that evolution is more fascinating than creationism... And that's fine, for you have leaped in your direction rather than being agnostic, which is in fact what Martel's point is.
When Pi asks the two investigators, "which story do you prefer." Their response is, the one with animals. To which Pi replies, "And so it is with God." At first I didn't understand Pi's reply. And that really bugged me. But after reading through all the comments on this strand, the island strand, and the which version do you believe strand, I have come to conclude that in preferring the animal story one is confessing they believe in God. And that is what Pi's response means. To prefer the story that requires a leap of faith is to prefer a world with God. To prefer the story that doesn't destroy human nature is to prefer a world where humans are innately good. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but it does to me. It makes perfect sense now, so thank you everyone for helping me figure this story out.
religion is a story we tell ourselves to make the cruelty of life and the necessity of death more bearable. pi tells a miraculous story because it is easier to handle than the truth.
it seems to me martel is saying that god does not exist, but believing in him easier than the truth.
I think the question is only barely approached by Dina's comment about Martel saying, in a lecture, that the book is about faith. No one has, so far, said if Martel meant the book to "make people believe in God". Most people are saying how the book did or did not contribute in their decision to believe in something.As for me, I agree with Lisa and what I read seemed to be one big episode of psychosis after an extremely traumatic event which leads Pi to kill and eat the people in the life raft then, later, the creepy chef. All of this he projects onto animistic hallucinations representing parts of his personality. All the religious stuff at the beginning is background of the character trying to make sense of the disparity of the traditions around him, vying for his attention. Background, as it later is useful as a way for Pi to understand or explain away what happened to him. When Pi said, "And so it is with God", he might have well said, "So it goes." in the manner of Kurt Vonnegut.
Liz wrote: "I must say, thats a very pessimistic outlook on life! ;)"it is a lot sadder than the idea of going to an after world with all my loved ones, true :) but i don't take it as pessimistic. rather, i try to live my life the best i can, and the fullest i can, because it's all i have.
if something horribly traumatic happened to me, like with Pi, i might also have to construct a story to help me deal with the darkness of life. i might choose to have faith in something i cannot prove.
i think that was what martel was getting at -- how we use faith to help us through horrible thoughts/ideas/events, but that does not mean that our faith is what is actually true.
Julian wrote: "Well said, Lisa!"thanks!
I suspect we should broaden our definition of faith. I'm not convinced Martel was exploring only the religious aspects.
Lisa wrote: "religion is a story we tell ourselves to make the cruelty of life and the necessity of death more bearable. pi tells a miraculous story because it is easier to handle than the truth.
it seems to m..."
So true. This book is one of my all time favorite books. I loved every second of it and then.... in the end I was crushed (yet, I still love the book).
I agree, to me, this was not a believe in God book, this was a book that transported me into a most fantastical adventure, one I WANTED to believe. It was a story of magical realism; and in the end it was a story that reminded me that reality is much more blunt than we like, life can be brutal, and the only way we can cope with this senseless finality is to make up wonderful stories that give meaning to what may not have a deeper meaning than: it just is.
I wouldn't know. I couldn't get through this book. I am not one to easily give up, but there was something about this one, that was just bad. It's listed as my first one I gave up on. Sad, because I thought it had promise given some of the reviews, that was until I saw others who thought like me.
When I see Rita's viewpoint, it fills me with amazement at how different people can respond so differently to the same story. It would be interesting to explore Rita's background and find out why she reacted this way. She felt it was "bad". I felt the opposite. To me it was a book that opened the mind and let the free ocean breeze blow through. I wonder if those that dislike it are constrained by religion. If you believe strongly that your own religion is the only true religion and some of us have been brought up to strictly believe that, then you could understand how such a person might feel threatened by Pi's religious open-ness. It could seem "bad" to them. But perhaps it was nothing to do with religion that made Rita feel it was bad. We humans are so diverse.
I disagree that Martel's sole aspiration was to convert people or make them believe in God. I think that although some people reacted in that way, by creating a character like Pi who does question things, who does think with both his heart and his brain, and who just couldn't decide between three different religions, he's opening us up to the possibility of faith itself, not specific religion.Reading the book, I couldn't get over the brilliance of those shorter chapters. I think they had a bigger impact on my philosophy and beliefs than the lengthier ones.
But I think the entire book is about recognising faith in aspects of life and how people react to that. If we were in Pi's situation, would we survive? Would we have any previous knowledge on the habits of animals? Animals that live among us, or inside us... I think it's about surviving your own thoughts, battling yourself, finding your own faith. Whether that be in religion or not.
I agree with you Mariam, wholeheartedly. Your words have such relevance in my own life right now, (you have no idea!) it is almost as though they have been sent to me from the universe. Thank-you from the bottom of my heart. It's especially your touch about the animals. I also have some living inside me. Life of Pi is no doubt a work of Genius, to help us towards such thoughts you have expressed.
It didn't make me think about if I should believe in god or not. It was more about truth for me and human nature. About what did he had to do to survive, both physically doing, and what his mind made.
I don't think the author had any intentions to make people believe or not in god.
It actually had an opposite affect on me. It confirmed my beliefs in the power of the human mind; how religion and the idea of "God" can convince otherwise rational thinking humans into seeing the supernatural where there is no supernatural. Is it really better to believe in a God that helps us along and helps us cope better than the reality of nature and the struggle for human survival?
Zaki wrote: "God is for real."Well, that's not what the discussion question asked, but since you brought it up, I think we'd all like to see some proof. Or did you mean "I think God is for real?"
You're right, there is a huge difference between saying God is real and saying you are from the UK, and in fact the latter can be proven in the context of the discussion, which was my point, that you can't just say "God is for real" without demonstrating how this is relevant to the discussion. To show that anything exists, like yourself, all I have to do is present evidence that makes it reasonable to conclude that you exist given the available set of information.
Your idea of not having to say "I think I'm from the UK" is a logical non sequitur. You don't have to introduce that statement with "I think" because the statement is verifiable through observable evidence. Anything else, like stating the existence of God, is an opinion about a belief that isn't verifiable by observable evidence. There is no reason to believe the opposite just as there is no reason to believe I am just a brain in a jar. (Which, if by jar you mean "a solid thing that can hold another thing, or a body," then I am, in theory and ironically, a brain in a jar.)
William Lane Craig's arguments have all been debunked.I was a Christian for the first 18 years of my life, and of course I didn't feel God, because I don't believe one exists; however, I did feel a "presence" like so many of the people I grew up with, a "presence" that can be easily explained. I asked and it wasn't given to me, I sought and I didn't find, I knocked and the door to reason opened up for me.
Did you know there are people who believe, really believe that they have been abducted by aliens? There are billions of Muslims in the world who really believe that Allah is real. There were millions of people in the past who believed Zeus really was the god of Mount Olympus. If you want to believe any of these things, I'm not trying to stop you from a basic right, I'm just saying you can't say with any certainty that your beliefs are real, after all, that's why it's called "faith."
I can easily prove where you live by the way, all I'd have to do is look at a couple of official documents then verify this by seeing you in person.
By the way, I don't know where you're getting this idea of me treating anyone with disdain. The people I love most in this world, my family, all believe "God is real" so I don't appreciate the accusation.
Tui wrote: "When I see Rita's viewpoint, it fills me with amazement at how different people can respond so differently to the same story. It would be interesting to explore Rita's background and find out why s..."If there was a "like" button I would have clicked it.
I agree. That is what came to mind when I read it. But then I also stopped and thought, "well then again some books we like, some we don't".
And to those who ARE religious, I mean no insult at all.
Liz wrote: "And I still don't think you can prove where I live! To do that you would have to be able to prove alot of other things first. Am I actually a real person? Documents and the like are called 'proof' but they are only artificial. Plus, they can be faked. You would also have to be able to prove that you are not, lets say a disembodied mind if you prefer that to 'brain in a jar', which if you were, would mean that I and wherever I live are a figment of your imagination and do not actually exist."I think you missed the whole point of this conversation to begin with. Before you can make any wild claims, like you're just a figment of my imagination, or that I'm just a brain in a jar, you need to show how this is relevant to the discussion at all. If I have a goal set out to prove where you live, I don't need to prove you exist first. All I need to provide is enough evidence that to believe the contrary would not make any sense. In other words, if I saw you, and I asked everyone around me if they saw you, and they confirmed they did, then I watch you interact with other people, the logical conclusion would be that you exist. Now, you can always say, "well maybe it's all in your head," but that isn't even relevant to the situation.
In other words, you are using a definition of the word "proof" that doesn't exist. Of course there is no way to actually "prove" anything, but you are just using an abstract definition. I can easily prove where you live in the sense that to believe anything else would be illogical based on observable, testable evidence that can be confirmed by repeated experiments under review from other sources. So I can prove that you exist in the sense that anything at all can be proven or known.
Liz wrote: "You're comment came across to me as being disdainful, otherwise I wouldn't have commented. I assure you, I respect your viewpoint - my problem was with what I thought was your disrespect for Zaki's. If there was no disrespect then I am very sorry."
I have no disdain for Zaki, I was just making a point that what he said was completely irrelevant to the topic. I was mostly being sarcastic in a teasing sense, my goal wasn't to provoke. Also, I strongly believe that anyone who brings forth a claim when there is no evidence for that claim should not present it as fact.
Liz wrote: "For me, there is no explanation for what I have felt. No way I could have conjured it up myself."
I realize that for you there is no explanation for what you felt, but that doesn't mean there is no explanation at all (besides a supernatural being for which there is no evidence). It is very possible, and in fact the most likely answer, that you conjured it up yourself. I know you don't want to believe that, and probably refuse to believe that, but it is the most likely answer. I think it's important to realize just how easily the mind can be manipulated or coerced into thinking a certain way. Just a simple example is "optical illusions" which are really just brain failures. It takes hardly any effort at all to convince otherwise rational thinking humans into believing the irrational, a simple look into history will reveal this. Even something as simple as a drawing is enough to convince your brain of what is otherwise true. An example:
Take a look at squares A and B. They are the exact same shade of color.
Hard to believe, right? Here there is a bridge drawn to the two squares revealing the two colors to be the exact same shade.
So, you can see just how easy it is for the mind to be tricked. I have no doubt that the "presence" you felt was an actual feeling, but to then connect those feelings to a supernatural entity is a non sequitur. Why is it so hard to believe the logical answer? That what you felt was a response to chemicals in your brain, just like everything else that you experience. I know that might seem like a dull explanation, but it's actually a really beautiful and complex process that happens in the brain.
Just for funzies, here's a link to a bunch more cool optical illusions: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot_adap...
Holly wrote: "I didn't get any major "make people believe in god" theme at all. The theme I walked away with was more of an exploration of "what is truth?" Can something be true if it seems beyond belief? Do we..."I agree... I didn't even think that was the point of the book at all. Though I have sort of forgotten the finer details, I was more fascinated by how one survives such an ordeal and if it really happened or is just a fantastical tale! And I couldn't but keep putting myself in Pi's place and wondering how I would have survived considering I am a vegetarian!!! Not joking at all!
Meera wrote: "Holly wrote: "I didn't get any major "make people believe in god" theme at all. The theme I walked away with was more of an exploration of "what is truth?" Can something be true if it seems beyond..."Aside from an interesting tale which (to my knowledge) hasn't been done before, the story seems to have evoked in me much of what it evoked in Holly.
Hmmm. I haven't read this whole thread, so please forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse here.I absolutely adored this book. IMHO it has nothing to do with influencing anyone's belief in God, per se. IMHO what it's about is creating your own reality. Reality is what you believe it to be.
As a wise and ancient Christian once said "Act as if ye have faith, and ye shall be given it". I'm not Christian, but I think that's a good principle. Act as though you're brave, or kind, or wise, or capable of surviving a shipwreck -- whatever you need at the time -- and you'll eventually find those qualities within yourself. Create your own reality.
This book is not meant to be taken literally. It's not about hallucinations are exactly what Pi does on the raft. THe whole story is allegorical and symbolic on some level.Pi talks about how Christians, Muslims and Hindus are really all just people who worship God; none of them really different from each other because they all love God.
The book is NOT about whether Pi really got shipwrecked, or if he was hallucinating, or anything; in fact, the begining where he learns different religions is described as the "heart of the story".
He also says that choosing agnosticism and doubt as a faith are like choosing immobility as a way of transformation. Pi respects atheists, becuase disbelieve without any proof and therefor believe something.
The ending with the Japanese businessmen is supposed to be like a non believer arguing with a believer; the Japanese say that bananas can't float but refrain from testing it; when it proven that bananas can float, they find something else to prove that the story is false. Then, Pi tells them a very rational, realistic version of events, and asks them which they believe more. They choose to believe his story.
I don't think the book was at all intended to make readers believe in God. I think it is more an encouragement for one to consider everything as possibly true. It also seems to be about our mind's ability to make almost anything bearable, the psyche's coping strategies. Perhaps it's more about belief in the self than in God.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
