Not quite sure where to post this, but I thought it could fit in well here.

I just finished reading a weird little book called The LIfe of Pi.

Basically, it is a thoroughly entertaining but completely unbelievable tale of a young man whose ship sinks, and so he spends about 200 days stranded on a life boat with a Bengal Tiger. It is an inspiring, exciting story with heroism and a real sense of wonder (in my opinion).

I don't want to spoil the story for anyone, so stop reading here if you want to read it.



Anyway, at the end of the story, some Japanese investigators come to hear his story, trying to understand why their ship sank. He tells it and they don't believe him - the story is just too weird and unbelievable. So then, the main character tells them another story. It is shorter and much more horrible. There is violence in both stories, but in the first one the violence gives the main character a chance to be heroic, whereas in the second story the main character is simply a victim of circumstance who ends up as depraved as everyone else.

When he finishes he asks the Japanese men if they believe the second story. They are more inclined to believe it, because there are no Bengal tigers or other improbable events. He asks which story they LIKED better and the Japanese men agree that the first one is a much better story. The main character then says that they can never know which story is true, because there is no evidence either way. The first story seems improbable, but certainly is not impossible. So why, he says, would you not choose the better story?

This was clearly intended to make us think about religion (a major theme of the book). So my question is: in the face of no evidence either way, why don't we choose the better story?

What do you think?

Because wouldn't be nothing more than an assumption? Why make a decision about the truth when we actually don't know?

I guess those who choose to make an assumption about the truth would be those who believe on faith.

quote:

So my question is: in the face of no evidence either way, why don't we choose the better story?

The "better story" to me is the one that makes the most sense. I have yet to be able to wrap my head around religious beliefs. The story of science is a lot more logical to me and, therefore, better.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarai:
This was clearly intended to make us think about religion (a major theme of the book). So my question is: in the face of no evidence either way, why don't we choose the better story?
What do you think?

I understand what the idea behind the story is. But it may not be able to be applied on relegion, why ? Believing in the story of the hero or not had no consequences for the people. Believing or not believing in a relegion generally has consequences.

I hope I made sense here.

Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarai:
This was clearly intended to make us think about religion (a major theme of the book). So my question is: in the face of no evidence either way, why don't we choose the better story?

What do you think?

Too many people have wicked hearts, which make them prefer to relish condemning and thereby destroying anyone who may have truth. Kicks, oneupmanship, fear, worldly power, dog eat dog, etc. prevent the truth from rising to the top. Then, there are the ones who think that they are not so evil, only busy, cheap, apathetic, going with the herd, and the like. Finally, there are those who are in too bad a way to entertain anything but entertainment itself, provided that it is not too displeasing.

I think that you may have been looking at only the last group or two, which is why you may have missed that despite the tiger symbolizing the most ferocious individual, one can still prosper in the midst of same. Also, the tiger is free, but individuals are not free, bound by their many hangups from reaching truth, the very thing which sets them free.

Moral for all, beyond the book: keep reading the wrong stuff, and you will be always looking but never finding the truth, and possibly even denouncing those books which deliver the truth, which you so desperately need.

I never read the book; I only write the ones with the truth in them.

The better story, for me, is the one that invariably delivers on its promises, that promises nothing more than what it has tested and what I am free to put to any test I can contrive, that I don't have to take anyone's word for it. The story that I have to accept on faith alone, just doesn't cut it.