"Life Of Pi" - Atheist Propoganda?

[mfbukowski]

Haha... yeah... well... I dunno, I've always thought the bit with insurance was just great... I thought it was hilarious to stick that in a futuristic western. Of all the things they lost going from one planet to the other... and yet, they didn't lose the idea of insurance companies XD.

I beg your pardon. Insurance is just a metaphor for the risks we take in life. Why one could say that insurance is LIFE itself!

On the other hand I have just one word for you.... Plastics!

Edit for the younger set:

Edited November 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

I beg your pardon. Insurance is just a metaphor for the risks we take in life. Why one could say that insurance is LIFE itself!

On the other hand I have just one word for you.... Plastics!

Edit for the younger set:

Very true lol. There's a good market to be made in plastics you say?

[mfbukowski]

May I offer a view from outside that of a believer's?

First, let me say I loved the book when I read it back in 2004. And I will say this about the movie - I would pay money to see it again in IMAX 3D. It is visually stunning in a way that is well-integrated into telling a compelling story. Ang Lee really did the book justice.

Regarding the question in the OP: I am former LDS but now agonistic while leaning strongly atheistic regarding religious dogma. My wife and I left the church before our daughter was old enough to be baptised. She's now a young pre-teen. Earlier this year she asked me what you call someone who doesn't believe in God. When I said, "an atheist" she replied, "Then that's what I am." We've had many discussions about religion and her position to it since then. My biggest fear is that she aquires a dogmatic anti-religious mindset that is no different than any other form of fundementalism. Much of our discussion has revolved around why, despite my unbelief, I value religion and still read scriptures if from many different groups. Don't get me wrong, I am more than ok with her being an atheist. But I'm concerned that she be knowledgeable about religion and why I don't think it's productive to be dismissive of it.

We went as a family to watch Life of Pi, prior to which I had only told her was that it was about a boy stuck on a boat with a tiger. She loved the movie. Afterward, we talked about it off and on all day.

When I asked her which story she preferred, she said, "The one with the tiger of course."

"Even though it isn't as logical as the other story?"

"Just because it wasn't logical doesn't mean it wasn't that way for him."

"True. True."

Anyway, thought you might appreciate a different perspective. Take from that what you will. I think it's open ended enough that any parent should be ok with the talk about God. I do think some younger kids might have problems with some of the scenes, though. There is a tiger in it, afterall, and it eats meat. They do a good job of getting the point across in a PG manner, but it certainly isn't G rated for a reason.

So after all those conversations we had about this world view you finally understand what I was saying?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Doesn't sound like "atheist propaganda" to me- it's sounds kinda like the very first step of faith as explained by Alma... the desire to believe...

• Alma 32:27
  27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
  

Edited November 23, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Honorentheos]

So after all those conversations we had about this world view you finally understand what I was saying?

:smile Being a Wittgensteinian, perhaps you should allow that any communication issue is a two-way affair?

The concerns between you and I are are always about practise more so than theory, friend.

Anyway, I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving.

[mfbukowski]

Saw the movie- great stuff! Loved it! My wife daughter and myself vote that it was faith promoting- but then again they actually think I am right about these things

I won't reveal the ending- but now I understand why one MIGHT see it as promoting agnosticism, in that the alternate story was so detailed and the primary story so fantastic. I thought that that kind of skewed the available choices more in the direction of agnosticism.

The way I see things both stories can be seen as true from different viewpoints, but which actually "is true" is of course lost and unknowable at least to the viewer.

[volgadon]

Saw the movie- great stuff! Loved it! My wife daughter and myself vote that it was faith promoting- but then again they actually think I am right about these things

I won't reveal the ending- but now I understand why one MIGHT see it as promoting agnosticism, in that the alternate story was so detailed and the primary story so fantastic. I thought that that kind of skewed the available choices more in the direction of agnosticism.

The way I see things both stories can be seen as true from different viewpoints, but which actually "is true" is of course lost and unknowable at least to the viewer.

Read some Buber and Zeitlin, especially the latter's essay on beauty. Tsimtsum sounds like a significant clue. It is the kabbalistic idea that the world could not exist had God not contracted the majority of his light into himself. He has left the light hidden, especially in the Torah.

Zeitlin: "All that is holy, beautiful, great, or good, anything that has true value, is in exile. All, all, is in exile. The finest pearls are sunk in the mud. All existence cries out in pain, seeking to emerge from exile, longing for redemption. Evil and defilement rule this world; the coarse, the untamed, the obtuse, the cruel. If anything great or beautiful does appear, it does not last. Even in the moment of its appearance it has no great power. The world seems to have been created only for filth and baseness. Beauty and holiness have no place here."

"The world altogether is a sort of illusion, a kind of hiding of God."

"When it arose in the blessed One's desire to create the world, in order to do good to His creatures, He reduced Himself. Into what was He concentrated? Into the letters of Torah, through which He created the world."

"But the main revelation of God, according to Hasidism, is in Torah. The entire Torah, from beginning to end, is nothing other than God, garbed in earthly matters, human stories, human laws and statutes."

"Just as, according to Hasidism, "God is world and world is God," referring to their deeply hidden roots, so too is Torah world is Torah... Just as the entire world, in the Hasidic view, is naught but the outer garment of God, so too is Torah nothing other than God's outer garb. In both of them- world and Torah- you have to discover God, seeking out the secret hidden within them. To see this way is to gaze with the inner eye, with a love so pure and a joy so divine that it is tasted only by a few in each generation."

I feel too lazy to post some Buber references, but you get the idea. The world is illusory, and the brutal reality is actually false and fleeting, and the more beautiful picture, the one that is harder to believe because we don't see it, is the real, eternal one.

[Duncan]

If this book/movie is atheistic in nature then Dr. Seuss' epic "Horton Hears a Who" is an argument for the existence of God-that's what I think about that book!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So it's not about math?

It has to be...I am not going to a movie to end up with a math quiz. Other than the test you must take at concessions on world economics. Edited November 24, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[mfbukowski]

We can pretty easily follow the "linguistic constructivist" view in these quotes. The central notion in all is that the the world is created linguistically- that stories create the way we think of things and represent the world as we know it. This view runs through the Judeo-Christian understanding of the world. God and his helpers "defined" the world into existence; it is through language that matter unorganized is codified and defined into structure.

"When it arose in the blessed One's desire to create the world, in order to do good to His creatures, He reduced Himself. Into what was He concentrated? Into the letters of Torah, through which He created the world."

"But the main revelation of God, according to Hasidism, is in Torah. The entire Torah, from beginning to end, is nothing other than God, garbed in earthly matters, human stories, human laws and statutes."

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Abraham 4- I have underlined every word which connotes linguistic organizing, "defining" the world, including numbers, into existence

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night....

7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second time that they called night and day.

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, Great Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered...

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time...

31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the sixth time.

So all we have to describe the world is language and ultimately that means we have made up explanations of it all. All we have is interpretations and descriptions.

So which story is true? Which do you prefer?

Edited November 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Saints Alive]

Saw the movie yesterday and I would say it is agnostic at best, definitely not atheist. I think it is pretty faith promoting, especially in the world we live in today where everything worth believing must be backed by scientific proof and probability.

[Nathair/|\]

http://www.gocomics.com/?ref=comics

[CV75]

pg 317 in the book:

"I told you two stories that account for the 227 days in between" - yes you did "Neither explains the sinking of the Tsimtsum (ship)" - that's right "Neither makes a factual difference to you" -that's true "you can't prove which story is true, and which is not. You must take my word for it." - I guess so. "In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer" - yes, that's true "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals" - the story with animals "yes, the story with animals is the better story... and so it goes with God."

The ship, death and suffering represent mortal life. The two stories about it represent our carnal and spiritual natures and resulting understanding of mortality. In the final report or judgment, God looks upon the best in us, or the spiritual story or development.

[changed]

Thanks for the comments everyone! It makes me feel better about the book.

Zeitlin: "All that is holy, beautiful, great, or good, anything that has true value, is in exile. All, all, is in exile. The finest pearls are sunk in the mud. ...

That goes along with the ship sinking in the book!

If this book/movie is atheistic in nature then Dr. Seuss' epic "Horton Hears a Who" is an argument for the existence of God-that's what I think about that book!

I never thought about the religious implications of that book until I saw the movie - the movie really brings out the religious message - I love Dr. Seuss.

The ship, death and suffering represent mortal life. The two stories about it represent our carnal and spiritual natures and resulting understanding of mortality. In the final report or judgment, God looks upon the best in us, or the spiritual story or development.

So, why is it ok to see animals killing one another, but not ok for humans? Beyond the veil, will we be able to forgive others because we see them as cute fuzzy animals that just didn't know any better?

Edited November 26, 2012 by changed

[rongo]

It sounds like the message of the book is along the lines of Pascal's Wager, too. Maybe a little?

[cinepro]

As soon as I heard that neither Tom Selleck nor a Ferrari were featured in the film, I had no interest in seeing it.

As far as this movie being "atheist propaganda", unless we're willing to accept all fantastic stories from other faith traditions as literally true, we can merely view the movie as a good way in which to understand the claims of other non-true religions. But it obviously wouldn't apply to our own true fantastic stories.

Edited November 26, 2012 by cinepro

[CV75]

So, why is it ok to see animals killing one another, but not ok for humans? Beyond the veil, will we be able to forgive others because we see them as cute fuzzy animals that just didn't know any better?

In my interpretation, I don’t think it’s about the animals or the humans in the story, but that the two versions simply represent two experiences and reports of the same life; one processed by the carnal mind and the other by the spiritual mind. When God judges us, He judges us by what we have seen, experienced and can report spiritually. This is why we are quickened by the spiritual power we possess, not by the carnal power we possess.

Now I cannot say that this is the interpretation the author intended (and I haven't seen his commentary), but this is what I choose to get out of it (Titus 1:15).

[BCSpace]

"I told you two stories that account for the 227 days in between" - yes you did "Neither explains the sinking of the Tsimtsum (ship)" - that's right "Neither makes a factual difference to you" -that's true "you can't prove which story is true, and which is not. You must take my word for it." - I guess so. "In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer" - yes, that's true "So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can't prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals" - the story with animals "yes, the story with animals is the better story... and so it goes with God."

I guess it's more of an agnostic message? that if you cannot prove anything either way, you might as well go for the "story with animals" (although perhaps deep inside you think the truth is the horror that happened with the people) - but the book, nor the movie, say which is the true account...

so I put the title as "atheist propaganda" but perhaps I should have put a different title on it - but then controversy always gets more replies so I'll leave it as is... and I guess someone who has not had a spiritual experience does find themselves in the position of the Japanese interviewers, trying to decide which unprovable story to believe?

So, the question is, would you take your kids to see this movie?

Frankly, I think the atheist/agnostic/historicity implications will be lost on most kids including my own who are quite smart. I've not discussed historicity issues with any of them and even my married/on a mission ones have not brought up the issue. If they have read the book, they might remember and put it together when they are older. Have not seen the movie (or read the book) myself but am looking forward to it.

I would not hesitate to take my kids to see this movie based on what you have reported. I still have 5, 11, 14, and 17 years old at home.

Edited November 27, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

In my interpretation, I don’t think it’s about the animals or the humans in the story, but that the two versions simply represent two experiences and reports of the same life; one processed by the carnal mind and the other by the spiritual mind. When God judges us, He judges us by what we have seen, experienced and can report spiritually. This is why we are quickened by the spiritual power we possess, not by the carnal power we possess.

Now I cannot say that this is the interpretation the author intended (and I haven't seen his commentary), but this is what I choose to get out of it (Titus 1:15).

[mfbukowski]

Frankly, I think the atheist/agnostic/historicity implications will be lost on most kids including my own who are quite smart. I've not discussed historicity issues with any of them and even my married/on a mission ones have not brought up the issue. If they have read the book, they might remember and put it together when they are older. Have not seen the movie (or read the book) myself but am looking forward to it.

I would not hesitate to take my kids to see this movie based on what you have reported. I still have 5, 11, 14, and 17 years old at home.

Story number two is less than edifying and if I remember correctly there are some fairly violent images that flash across the screen for a second or two as it is being told- but that is at the very end. It might be too much for a 5 year old but an 11 year old would probably think it was "cool" unless he/she is unusually sensitive or has not been exposed to war type scenes etc.

Worst case, cover the 5 year old's eyes. Maybe I am not remembering it correctly- it was flashed quickly on the screen.

[volgadon]

The thread reminds me of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2bYJQFQMs8&feature=related

I posted two videos, because they are almost two different songs. Besides it is Jimi's birthday today.

[mfbukowski]

I posted two videos, because they are almost two different songs. Besides it is Jimi's birthday today.

Ahhhhhhhhhh................... life is good. Those are the best!

Two watchtowers and not a JW in sight.

Happy Birthday Jimi.

Edited November 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nathair/|\]

Ahhhhhhhhhh................... life is good. Those are the best!

Two watchtowers and not a JW in sight.

Happy Birthday Jimi.

The Watchtower Ritual

[Azariah]

I read the book awhile ago and I remember it promoting faith. That line you underlined even promotes faith. Maybe not one particular faith but following a faith in general.

However, the story of animals in the boat can be shown to be false (thus proving Pi to be a liar). For example, if people were murdered on the boat, then their would be forensic evidence to verify such. Just as their would be evidence if a tiger or other animals had been on the life boat. If no evidence for animals exists, this lowers (if not destroys) Pi's credibility. If blood or some other physical evidence is found which points to foul play (murder) then it not only lowers his credibility but proves him to be a flat out liar. Doesn't matter how interesting his story was. Of course, if he admits the story about the animals was purely from his own imagination (fiction) then one could see it as a coping mechanism the boy employed to justify his actions (survival instincts).

[bluebell]

However, the story of animals in the boat can be shown to be false (thus proving Pi to be a liar). For example, if people were murdered on the boat, then their would be forensic evidence to verify such. Just as their would be evidence if a tiger or other animals had been on the life boat. If no evidence for animals exists, this lowers (if not destroys) Pi's credibility. If blood or some other physical evidence is found which points to foul play (murder) then it not only lowers his credibility but proves him to be a flat out liar. Doesn't matter how interesting his story was. Of course, if he admits the story about the animals was purely from his own imagination (fiction) then one could see it as a coping mechanism the boy employed to justify his actions (survival instincts).

I read the book years ago so my memory might not be very good, and haven't seen the movie, but the boat isn't around when Pi tells his story, is it? Doesn't it get abandoned somewhere or destroyed or something?