MovieChat Forums > Life of Pi (2012) Discussion > Story is totally pro-atheism

Story is totally pro-atheism

posted 11 years ago by Assumption_of_Rationality
121 replies | jump to latest

It shows religions (and believing in Gods) are only wishful thinking to hide from the brutality of the material world.
"ADULT PI :So which story do you prefer?
WRITER: The story with the tiger. That's
the better story.
ADULT PI: Thank you. And so it goes with God."
With the storm representing Christianity and the island representing Islam (Iam quite sure there is a metaphor of Hinduism as well but iam not familiar with that ), the movie (or novel) views religions negatively with a critical eye and totally dismisses them.
Iam a muslim myself, so though i don't like the message of the novel, it is still an excellent thought provoking one.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bsharporflat 10 years ago

I saw Pi's animal story as one you might find in the Bible. It sounds crazy, and obviously it cannot be true in a literal sense. It is, however, based on truth. It's merely an allegorical story of real events.

Carl Sagan interprets the Garden Of Eden story as allegory for human evolution. Adam and Eve, before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, were naked and living in the jungle, eating the food they could find, like apes.

After they ate the fruit they started wearing clothing and left the garden jungle and, as Cain and Abel, reflect, they started growing their own crops and animals. Civilized farmers instead of naked apes.

Furthermore, Eve was punished for eating the fruit with painful childbirth. The cause of human childbirth pain is that human babies are born with an enlarged head, the consequence of our evolved brains- i.e. "eating from the Tree Of Knowledge".

[–] Z_cm 10 years ago

This is at heart a movie about intellectual dishonesty.

To support this is the fact that the investigators actually decide to choose any story at all, instead of reporting that they were unable to conclusively discover the causes of the shipwreck. Pi's story is completely irrelevant to their job, which is unearthing the facts of the occurrence. And so it goes with God.

Further taking a page from the movie's book, I choose to believe this movie is about the hypocrisy and dishonesty of false belief for the sake of peace of mind.

And also that, sometimes, nice family men are actually murderous cannibals.

[–] david-rf 9 years ago

You and your post are pro-stupidity.

VIVA LA VINYL

[–] LionInWinter 9 years ago

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the huge amount of people who don't see which ending is the real one. I'm an atheist realist and immediately thought the animal story was fake, but for everyone who isn't sure it's a very interesting take on religion. As you say, thought provoking. The point is it only comes off as atheist if you're already a skeptic, not to believers.

Also, who or what sank the boat? Could have been God.

[–] OneGettingOlderAndBetter 9 years ago

I beg to differ. I would choose "secularism" against "athéism". Either Piscine would not teach all those religions.
"Faith is a home with many rooms" is a good definition. Secularism rules out religion as a leading principle, but it does not forbids nor scorns its nature.
Piscine's father is an athéist. Pi is not. He is a secular man. Religion, faith does not rule his life, he knows the difference between knowledge and faith. Though he does not let knowledge wedge him. His faith helps him moving despite his knowledge.


Manelle
"to tax and to please, no more to love and to be wise, is not given to men"

[–] steffeeric 9 years ago

If you don't choose to believe the first story with the animals then you have chosen the more reasonable and much darker choice. The point that I thought was being made was that it is a choice. This is why at the end he asks which story he "prefers" not which story he "believes".

One of the biggest questions this movie brings up is why are the stories we prefer often the hardest stories to believe. That is why many atheists see this as pro-atheist saying the 1st story is all BS and that God and religion is poppycock designed to make people feel better (or turn them to sheep).

The religious folks will say they prefer the first story and choose to believe that story. That is the story that makes them feel better and that is what they are looking for in life after all so making the choice to believe without any evidence is irrelevant because the end result is what matters...and in this case the belief is what makes them feel better about life.

Now people more in the middle like me look at it with a bit of each side. The 1st story likely was made up. The 2nd story seems more reasonable...but in this situation (which is as simple as interrupting a movie) I can choose to believe whichever I want. I choose to believe the first story because it is much more compelling and just makes me feel better.

The final question deals with something more complicated. It is no longer about interrupting a movie ending but life itself. What would make someone like me truly believe in god? Would I need evidence of his definite existence or just evidence that believing his existence would make me feel better? I am sure the answer lies somewhere in between the two as usual but I fear I will never actually find out for myself.

[–] Innsmouth 9 years ago

If you don't choose to believe the first story with the animals then you have chosen the more reasonable and much darker choice. The point that I thought was being made was that it is a choice. This is why at the end he asks which story he "prefers" not which story he "believes".

One of the biggest questions this movie brings up is why are the stories we prefer often the hardest stories to believe. That is why many atheists see this as pro-atheist saying the 1st story is all BS and that God and religion is poppycock designed to make people feel better (or turn them to sheep).

The religious folks will say they prefer the first story and choose to believe that story. That is the story that makes them feel better and that is what they are looking for in life after all so making the choice to believe without any evidence is irrelevant because the end result is what matters...and in this case the belief is what makes them feel better about life.

Now people more in the middle like me look at it with a bit of each side. The 1st story likely was made up. The 2nd story seems more reasonable...but in this situation (which is as simple as interrupting a movie) I can choose to believe whichever I want. I choose to believe the first story because it is much more compelling and just makes me feel better.

The final question deals with something more complicated. It is no longer about interrupting a movie ending but life itself. What would make someone like me truly believe in god? Would I need evidence of his definite existence or just evidence that believing his existence would make me feel better? I am sure the answer lies somewhere in between the two as usual but I fear I will never actually find out for myself.

Good analysis.

I think another important question is - what really makes up a human being? In which sphere, the material or the imaginative/spiritual/idealistic does the true definition of humanity lie? Did we create incredible buildings and cities because we did what was "reasonable" and what was confined within our own limited world....or because we dreamed of the impossible? Why did man walk on the moon? Why do we create art? I think the answer to all those lie in the same sphere as the story with the animals. It is the story with hope. What are humans without hope?

Arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhBWDzkqEPY

[–] mattiasflgrtll6 9 years ago

It's neutral. You can pretty much choose for yourself.
I disagree with both those saying it's a Christian movie and those saying it's an atheist movie.

[–] drystyx 9 years ago

I disagree. I think it more Agnostic. I actually don't believe either story the man told, because the second one was just as tainted by his outlook of which he wasn't sure of his perceptions. I don't think he lied, but I do think he constantly questioned what he saw, and lived sort of a life of photo flashes.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!