In his 1927 speech “Why I Am Not A Christian,” British
philosopher Bertrand Russell briefly explains the process by which he decided
to set aside his belief in Christian dogmas and choose instead to follow
science and tangible fact in his pursuit of knowledge. He briefly explains some
of the most popular reasons that people have cited throughout history as why
they believe in God, the immortal, and the ultimate benevolence of Jesus
Christ. Russell, after each description, tears down the specific argument as
either a logical fallacy or a moral inconsistency. Finally, Russell concludes
with his belief that organized Christian religion-as organized in churches
across the globe-has been the primary force acting against moral development
among human beings. This is, in part, due to some of Christ’s teachings about
hell and the underworld, and mostly to do with the fact that religion is
created and believed out of a fear for the unknown. Russell poses that cruelty
and religion are linked by their source in this regard. At the end of the
speech Russell urges people to suspend their faith in religion and instead
follow the path of fact and reason. So, the question is, how would Russell view
the actions of Pi Patel, and how accurately does Pi’s creation of a false
reality mimic one Christian believing in God and immortality?
Martel had to have had something in mind when he created the
“reveal” at the end of Pi’s story. In my mind, it seems like the most likely
reason was to provide a commentary on belief in general-its utility-based
purposes in terms of a possibly beneficent effect on one’s life. Its obvious
that Russell disagrees with this on a fundamental level, but in the case of
Patel, which is obviously a unique one, can an exception be made? Also, Russell
writes the essay specifically against the Christian religion, so would Patel’s
general ideology (ideologies) show a more moral approach to religion (i.e.,
trying to live up to those “good” maxims that Russell believes Jesus promoted,
and picking the “good” parts out of each religion) and relieve him of blame for
creating the animal fallacy on the boat? I do not know if I have asked the
right questions so far, but surely there is something to be explored in a
relationship between Russell’s speech and the “reveal” in Life of Pi. Any thoughts?
Excellent post. There are definitely a great deal of parallels between Russell's discussion of religion and Ang Lee/Yann Martel/Pi Patel's exploration of it. In both cases, belief could be said to stem from an inability to cope with reality. Religion explains the unknown and unexplainable, and Pi's "animal fallacy," as you say, lessens the psychological sting of cannibalism. Both are very fear-driven as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Russell would necessarily disagree with Pi's ideologies though, since Pi hasn't become completely separated from the reality of the situation (assuming that the human-story is real). He may craft his tale as a coping mechanism, unable to face the reality of humans being killed in front of him, but he's still able to relay the real events to the reporter. His first story becomes a parable, and the tension between his fictional account and actual account seems to comment more on textual interpretation (specifically with respect to religious texts) than prove Pi's total separation from science/tangibility.
I'd certainly like to see Russell and Martel hash out their differences in person, though. Maybe throw a tiger in the mix too, for the sake of the story.
I agree with Anna on this one. Pi has no come completely separated with reality and what he witnessed on the lifeboat, but rather, uses the story of Richard Parker (if we are to believe the cannibalizing other survivors option to be true) as coping mechanism to deal with the trauma he experienced on the boat and seeing what human beings resort to in survival situations.
ReplyDeleteI want to point out the reason that, as Pi puts it, has a story that "will make you believe in God." Russell's view of religion can be paralleled to the existence of Richard Parker, whether he was made up or not. Russell states that religion is created and believed out of a fear in the unknown. Yet it is through this fear of the unknown that much exploration and personal searching comes, as well as faith. This "unknown" is similar to Richard Parker, the tiger, as one can assume that being stuck on a boat with a starving tiger is certainly a death sentence. It is through Pi's trials and testing of the unknown that he reaches his relationship with Richard Parker and gains the faith he has.
Ya'll took most of the words out of my mouth. I really agree with everything you are saying about coping with the fear of the unknown, but I want to expand on the fact that Pi is a child. Russell mentions the tendencies for children to really take what they are told, given, or perhaps believe/perceive, and defend those principals or even parables. This is perhaps why there is some sense of blurriness between realities.
ReplyDeleteExcellent discussion here. I will just add on to do this discussion of the fear of the unknown. Although I have not watched the film I think that, as Matt said, Pi's testing of the unknown, not the fear of it, gives him the faith that he has. I think that this an important distinction. Pi's faith does not stem from fear, but his interactions with the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd because Pi's principles are less judgmental that traditional Christianity, I think Russell would have less of a problem with his faith. Russell does not argue against religion just because he thinks it is not true but because he believes it is detrimental. It is hard to see Pi's principles being harmful to anyone.
I cannot say that Russell would be in favor of the Pi's story, at least from a philosophical level. You mention that Russell says that religion is created out of fear of the unknown, and I believe this is a valid argument. In Pi's case, however, it is different; thanks to the reveal at the end of the movie, it is clear that regardless of which story is true, he knows the real one, and so using the made-up story is simply running from the truth about human nature. Pi may only be a child, and so exceptions could be made, but were it anyone older it wouldn't be an issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely true that Pi takes the best parts of each of the three religions he likes and pretty much ignores the evangelical, the judgmental, etc., in much the same way as he does with reality. It's an almost existential take on the experience of reality--he experiences what he wants to experience and what is actually there is of little import to him, like bad faith but with a positive spin on it.
ReplyDeleteI think a key difference here is the age and experience of Pi. Russel talks about how one problem with religion is that we are taught it at a very young age. We learn the "good" and "bad" at a very young age and then cannot see a life without religion. In this case, however, Pi would be essentially making up his own religion (if you want to extend the metaphor that far). I do not think this is what is happening though. In this case, Pi has a different lens to see a very real story. The religious aspect of this movie comes from getting through Pi's experiences and facing fear and unknown and coming through it.
ReplyDeleteI also don't believe that Russel would be opposed to Pi's ideologies. He'd still find them false, but because Pi not only extracts the "best" parts of each religion (or the parts that ring truest for him), and actually follows them, I can't find much for Russel to take issue with. Russel seems annoyed with Christians who pick and choose which of Jesus's teachings they'd like to follow (omitting some of his most humanitarian, albeit most challenging), but Pi isn't doing this. Rather than subscribing to a religion that was basically appointed to him at birth and not following its most important teachings because they're too hard, it seems like Pi evaluates which parts of each religion he wants to adopt from his own will, accepting some self-sacrifice. Pi's ideologies are a positive influence on his actions, so while Russel might disagree with him, I doubt he'd really have any problems with Pi.
ReplyDeleteAnna mentioned in her comment that Pi's presentation of the story is certainly not the looking "fair and square" at the world that Russell advocates but that this also does not prove his separation from reality.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, he seems well aware of reality and is using a parable to illustrate the values he learned in his struggle, much like Christ. Pi's beliefs are based upon the truth of his experiences, but he cannot make others believe in this way. So, it seems to me that Russell and Pi are in agreement. People see religious truth as separate from reality, and only a fantastical tale can help them see moral truth.