Life of Pi
discussion
Is this book meant to make you believe in God?
date
newest »
newest »
this is book is a story... meant to be read... meant to be savoured.... i am not sure why this book would mean to make anyone believe in god...there is a role that divinity plays in the scheme of things, but so what? i feel we should savour the story being told and leave these arguments aside...god is about belief... and belief is personal...each one is free to have his or her own belief...
Shula wrote: "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 ..."It is, I believe, meant to show how humans create mythologies to help them understand and glean meaning from the reality of their existence. It really doesn't matter which system of metaphor you chose...what matters it that you choose one (or more) and glean whatever lessons from it that you can that can help you to be a more peaceful, forgiving, and loving person, both to others and to yourself.
Sayan wrote: "this is book is a story... meant to be read... meant to be savoured.... i am not sure why this book would mean to make anyone believe in god...there is a role that divinity plays in the scheme of t..."Well to put it another way, what does not shatter you makes you stronger.
I think Donald's point was more genuine, aimed at the overly presumptuous atheist scientific community and not anyone in particular. I know the movie is a good testing base for faith, but aside from that I could see the larger point.
Aronofsky is just not a very good or grounded atheist filmmaker. It seems Donald and many others take umbrage with his radicalized arguments.
I can't say I disagree too much. Even Richard Dawkins is closer to the agnostic pov, and lets it be made very clear that he's not ruling God out. Aronofsky otoh, just comes across as arrogant.
I admit I'm probably an agnostic, but regardless these stories from the Bible deserve stronger scrutiny than one like Aronofsky would give them. Movies play a role in shaping thought, they aren't just for sport, or else there would never be such outbursts.
Case in point? Aronofsky's latest movie "Noah" is out to scientifically show somehow that Noah's flood never happened. This is a doomed to fail project from the word go, and designed with ill-motives.
Even when we all agree there is some divine entity behind things, regardless of whether we choose to believe in it or not..that in no way contends that scientists are out to prove the Noah's ark story.
In the first place, the day the Ark was made was also an age where myths were as common as grains of sand in a desert. There is nothing to show that the Noah legend wasn't a greatly exaggerated bedtime story, or an account from one man's writing, since no evidence exists.
But in the very least, that should stop Senor Aronofsky from attacking this part of religion as the weakest link. By understanding that this is one story/tall tale we cannot dissect since a lack of evidence would deem it wasteful?
However, I believe some version of Noah's Ark happened due to the countless historical records of the flood. Not because of a book. The combined history about the flooding of China, Asia and Europe during the Li dynasty, surely seems to be a large bit of circumstantial evidence for Aronofsky to be poking fun at?
http://powerpointparadise.com/blog/20...
If we look above at such myths and stories, I would say we already have proof for a thorough investigation to determine the Ark's origins. Several cultures and historical accounts mentioning the ark, along with other Scribe Scrolls as corroboration at least deserves scrutiny. Aronofsky is doing a disservice to millions, in a very unrepentant manner by casually omitting this from his new movie. What you deny, persists.
The book is not meant to make you believe in God. It's meant to tell you, from the author's viewpoint, why you believe in God.i.e If you can believe that an adolescent boy survived on a lifeboat in the Pacific for 227 days with a Tiger on board, then of course you believe in God.
My opinions and impressions of this book are still evolving though.
I read this book and went, "Meh." Really one of the most boring books I've ever finished and honestly, I don't see why it's so famous. Everyone has different opinions and experiences with the same books, I suppose.
Gordan wrote: "Sayan wrote: "this is book is a story... meant to be read... meant to be savoured.... i am not sure why this book would mean to make anyone believe in god...there is a role that divinity plays in t..."hey gordan, Darren Aronofsky did not make the movie version of Life of Pi, Ang Lee did. Aronofsky did make a movie called Pi though, but it has nothing to do with this book.
I think that was just a metaphore to say that, in the end, you are so moved by the story with the animals, that you would rather believe that, than the truth, which lies in front of you. However, he places religion as something "you have chosen to believe" instead of the objective reality. I think it's clear he makes that distinction.
What was it Parke Godwin wrote in "Waiting for the Galactic Bus"? - To paraphrase: Religion is what you do on Sunday, your faith is what you do all week. I thought the larger middle part of this book actually dragged and drifted a bit (no pun intended), so if there is a spiritual message here it might have lost itself in a certain degree of rambling. It's a good book though and God is definitely in it, but he's in at least three disguises, so if you are intended to believe, you'll have to pick one first, if you don't have one already.
I think the book is all about faith and not about convincing the reader to believe in God. After reading it though, all I could think of is how clever it all was and how we could all look at two things so differently. I believe that you kind of choose what to believe and your outlook in life depends on your belief system.The first story begs the question, is it too impossible?
Why do some look down upon others who possess great faith and question their beliefs if they indeed just have "blind faith." What is terribly so wrong about having too much faith.
I wanted so much to believe the first story Pi told but I do have doubts.. All I could conclude after reading this is this: if the first story was the real truth then, nothing is impossible. If the second story was the real truth, then it is just sad.-- so does your faith count?
Mich wrote: "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.
..."
actually there are 2 narrators in the story, Pi, and the writer Pi is telling his story to. The writer is based in realism, and Pi is the "unreliable" narrator weaving a parable about how he survived a shipwreck.
in any case, i do not think narrative case can be used to prove that Yann Martel believes in God. Pi himself makes his point very clear at the end of the book when he asks the writer which is the better story, the improbable one about animals, or the horrible one about people killing each other.
clearly, the animal story is a better story - more fulfilling, inspiring, and beautiful. Pi says "And so it is with God," meaning that the existence of God is a better story than the alternative (that there is no god and we are just here without purpose).
Pi is saying he prefers the beautiful and improbable story over the harsh, real one, and that is why he prefers to have faith that there is a God.
The book being about stories as well makes good use of another author tasked with telling Pi's story.Sure the story is a work of fiction, but it could go like this....(Yann Martel=number 1, Narrator=number 2, Pi=number 3, and what actually happened=number 4).
All stories are like this, watered down and changed and so on.
teri wrote: "I tried to read this book 3 times and never could get through it. For those who finished, what kept you going?"Think of it as "Cast away"...a story of survival. Also, expect a shocking surprise at the end.
What I don't get is why the kid was so whiny. I wouldve killed the tiger in 2seconds flat and fished up some delicious pacific salmon.God created this universe for us to experience. That is the meaning of life. The End.
Either Story A or Story B is true. God wouldn't care either way.
Very interesting discussion. I didn't think of the two stories in the Life of Pi as a choice between imagination and reality. One story includes elements that are more unfamiliar. We have never seen or heard of a carnivorous island. The other story is more plausible. But both stories are equally useful in explaining why the ship sank and how Pi survived. Both stories are equally useful fictions.Personally, I don't believe in God but I would never criticise another person's belief and I don't think there is anything wrong with believing in God. There is no proof that God does not exist but no absolutely compelling proof God does either. So it is a free choice. In a way, people make the choice because of its effect in their lives. We could say that God is a useful fiction but also realising that the theories of reason and science are not more than useful fictions either.
To a point, I agree with you, Mark. Maybe I'm too fatalistic, but I do believe that there is a God, only you cannot negotiate with Him, and I only use 'Him' because of the lack of a proper pronoun. Something holds everything together. Anyway, I had enjoyed the book both times I read it.
So weird. When I read the book (twice!), the God thing went almost completely unnoticed by me. I was totally taken in by the story, the adventure. When I saw the movie, I paid more attention to the God thing but I saw it as simply a set-up for the main character, who was obviously a gentle, kind soul in search of meaning. When he had to go against the nature of his own soul, he essentially split himself in two in order to psychologically get through the ordeal. In the end,the tiger going off into the woods without looking back, this meant to me that he said goodbye to that part of him when he no longer needed it (or that part of him said goodbye). He cried for that part of him, which makes me think that he saw the benefits of having the ability to stand up for yourself and even harm others when it is necessary, but in the end he went back to his gentle soul that is incapable of harming. As far as his statement "and so it is with God," I agree with people who feel that he has decided to believe the better story of life, in which there is a God. But that also leaves the audience to make their own decision, without judgment from the character.
Mark wrote: "So it is a free choice. In a way, people make the choice because of its effect in their lives. We could say that God is a useful fiction but also realising that the theories of reason and science are not more than useful fictions either. "Just a couple of point. One, most people are indoctrinated into religion, they don't "just choose." Two, the theories of reason and science are more than useful "fiction." Science saves millions of lives, and we are benefiting from it right now just by being on a computer.
At no point during the reading of this book did I think "Oooh, it's God! Fancy that!" I figure you bring that with you or you don't, and if you do that's fine. What I read was a tale that was rather wacky and often far-fetched (no doubt deliberately), but at no point did it tweak my personal religious ear. Given a few hours you could explain away just about everything Pi experienced without God even putting a whisker through the door - delirium, fabrication, self-fulfilling fantasy, revelation, even the hideously dirty reality of stress - but it scarcely matters. It really doesn't. Like any other experience where people find their God, it is as subjective as your own skin. For Pi, for me, and for you.
I understood this book as:Pi told two versions of a story--whichever one you believe, they result in the same outcome, regardless of which one is actually true or not. One version contains magic and is positive and results in hope; the other is dark and heartbreaking and leaves you with despair. As Pi poses at the end of the book, which one would you rather believe? Likely, the story with the animals.
Likewise, we can view life in two ways: one way is darker and purposeless, with no higher meaning or purpose. The other, through religion (whatever religion that may be--the religion itself isn't important, as they all accomplish the same thing:), which paints a more comforting, magical, positive picture (at times). Therefore, if the result in life is the same--we are born, we live, we die--and we can't know for sure which version is true--we may as well believe the religious/positive version and make living our lives more enjoyable and full of meaning. The end result is the same either way.
I myself am not a religious person, although I have experienced living according to several of the major religions, and I found this book to be the most valid argument FOR religion that I've heard in a very, very long time. The book was so powerful and captivating, and this whole twist to the moral of the story was astounding to me.
I read some of the previous few pages of comments. I read the book some years ago, saw the film recently. My mum gave it to me, she is a sort of deist/atheist, I was an atheist then, the book didn't change my view, although I am now certain that neither theism nor atheism are tenable positions; whatever a 'God' might be, there is no way a person could ever begin to understand that, if said 'God' makes a man out of himself, calls it his son, then has himself/his son die to save people, yet the next 2000 years of teaching, to this day, state that we need to be saved... whatever. No person can conceive of the ultimately powerful, the absolute knower, and an absolute love that permits painful but not serious illness. It's imagination that makes up for this lack of conceivability, and that proves nothing.The story, too, makes no proofs. To believe the barely plausible tiger-meerkat-island story is to be more open to imagination & fantasy, not to theism. To be sceptical of it is to be more honest & 'mature', for what that's worth.
There is no argument for or against faith in the story from what I remember, there is just a story, and another story that is a summary of the first, but easier for us to accept.
Which I find interesting.
I don't think people have rights to their beliefs though, not in a social sense, for themselves, whatever, but what a person is, without the social, I do not know. Beliefs that make people feel guilt over love & accident, beliefs that make people feel that they are ethically responsible in a world where all is conditioning, and there is no way by which we can even begin to imagine it otherwise, beliefs that justify war, beliefs that justify killing, these things are not what people should have rights to. (not that war & killing are never justified, stopping Nazis & continuing diverse discourse are probably good reasons, justified by beliefs that diverse discourse allows for greater possibility, allowing for the potential for actual progress, but that isn't what I'm talking about directly)
Those listed above are not only religious beliefs, beliefs that say that empirical verification is the only legitimate model for knowledge depend on faith in one's (the species's, the person's) aptitude- Faith in grammar is a bigger problem than faith in Christ.
If this book is an argument for the existence of God then either Martel is an idiot, or a prankster. I believe this book to be a story, with provocative, if simplistic ideas about people.
Anyway, a boy could train a tiger if he was lucky & needed to... I remember when I read it, I had decided it was just barely plausible, but that was enough, then when the alternative tale was offered at the end, I decided it didn't matter which was true, it was the journey that made it interesting, not the conclusion.
It is my opinion that Pi only tells one story. It is the story of the tiger in the boat with him. The other a story the man from the government or the boat company gave him is presented as a possible true tale. I think the reason why Martel says repeatedly that Pi's story will make the reader believe in God is that in the end there are two stories. One that is believable and one that is not. The story that is not believable because the tiger gets out of the boat and goes into the forest and no one ever sees him. Only Pi sees the tiger.So Pi has made it across the ocean without any real knowledge of how he did it. Since it was a long way and the tiger which he believed was with him was not found it makes Pi believe in God and will do that for the reader. It is a device to get people to read the story and then think about what they have read.
So the book ultimately says people believe in God because it makes a better more likable story. That is why you will believe in God once you have read Pi's tale. And this discussion will go on forever.
Yvonne - I'm fine with that too, although he does tell 2 stories, literally. Still, if the book says that, then I disagree, it's easier to like, and better in that it entertains more, but eventually, I'd say the God option is less likeable (in the negative effects of such beliefs) and is only better in its capacity to enthral and entertain, but talks of 'better' lead us into talks of 'good' then we have to work out what we want that to mean, and, as you say, this discussion will go on forever.Like I said at the end, the conclusion is not so important, it is what comes before that matters... for a non-theist that is glaringly obvious, for a theist it describes their predicament aptly.
Still, when it comes to matters of truth, it doesn't seem to be all that important in most cases... other than in the impossibility of intelligible free will, that truth matters... but meh :)
I love you conclusion.
As 1st I believed in the first story, then I believed in 2nd story but finally I made up my mind that both stories were untrue but made up by Pi.Initial part (the human story) was made up to help him deal with the loss of his mom and taking justice for her and having a closure. Notice how the characters were exactly the same as those in the kitchen scene where his mom was bullied by the cook. Notice also how short the story ended. I interpret the length of the story was enough to served its purpose - To have a closure on his loss of his mom.
The animal story - Richard Parker was an extension of himself blurred with a figment of his dad's image . Also this story helps him to stay alive and grapple with the sudden loss of his dad . Up to the point where he was saved, you could tell that his inability to have his last words with his dad and closure was what that pained him most. He had hope that the tiger (his dad) could have a last look at him before going off but truth is it didn't . In reality, he didn't get to say goodbye in the ship and that fact can never be changed. So the last part when he cried so hard at the Mexican beach shows he accepted the cruel truth of the reality - the departure of his dad with no last words or look . it was his final acceptance of the reality and a closure of sorts.
Finally I question what is the author's message on God in this? I think it tries to say that with faith in God, one has hope and can be strengthen to go on in hardships. After all science and logic can't provide us the mental and emotional spirit to persevere on as well in trying times when one sees no hope in life.
This book is meant to make you think. And I personally don't not think it is meant to make you think about anyone ONE religion. If you recall, if you have read it, the main charter is not involved in any one religion but studies nearly every modern religion to learn all he can about the "many faces of god". I think this is the authors' way of saying don't just follow a realign to follow it. Learn all you can and decide for yourself which is your true religion. So in a way it is about God but I do not believe its intention is to MAKE you believe. Also if you are referring to the many 'spiritual encounters' the main character faced along his journey. Well that all comes down to did you believe there was really a Tiger in the boat or were the animals metaphors for what happened to the people?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The book is about faith, myth and stories and how they help.
The sceptic's conclusion at the end isn't speaking for everyone.