Which Story Do You Prefer?

That was the question posed to an atheist/writer by the sole human survivor of a horrendous ship-wreck at sea. As far as movies go, Life of Pi was a tad slow- moving, understandably, since the story line is a tale of a young man adrift in the middle of the ocean for 227 days with just a Bengal tiger for company - what action can one expect of such a premise after all? But underneath the simplicity of the plot was a thoughtful provocation to ponder the mystery of God and the reason for believing in something beyond our fragile humanity.  Weaved amidst the poetical scenes of shimmering oceans teeming with life and the enormous star-studded heavens was an almost imperceptible invitation to look beyond the beauty of nature to acknowledge the Creator of all nature . Even the fierceness of the storm which finally drove the hero to his knees called attention to the omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of an invisible SomeOne at work in the hero's life. He and his tiger adrift on a boat were not alone in their lost state, though there seemed to be no answer to his frustrated scream as he battled for his very life in the raging storm , "I have lost everything, What else do You want from me? I surrender!" Lest we miss the point, it was at this stage of surrender that his boat was swept onto solid ground. 

The movie is an adaptation of a book which won its author Yann Martel 3 prestigious international book prizes for fiction.  I haven't read the book, but certainly I can appreciate why it's so highly acclaimed. If one cares enuf to look beyond the fantasy adventure theme (which by itself is excellent), it encapsulates  the universal search of mankind for answers which ultimately revert back to what we should know all along - that we can ask and argue our lives away, but really it boils down to whether we will accept God on His terms. At the end of it all, as the hero presents another 'more believable' version of what happened, the atheist   is asked to make a decision which of the 2 stories he would prefer to believe. So which is it? The one which features the incredible tale of how a boy got stuck in a life boat with 4 animals at first with eventually only the tiger  left, as a crazed hyena kills and eats the zebra and the orang utan, only to be attacked by the tiger in turn, after which their boat is swept onto a magical island with carnivorous plants which eats up everything at nite. Finally as our exhausted and near-death hero gets washed back into civilization, the tiger unceremoniously disappears into the forest without so much as a goodbye glance back. 
The atheist is then told the alternate version, which involves humans instead of animals namely Pi's mother, a sailor with a broken leg and a cannibalistic cook.  In this story, the cook kills the sailor, and then the mother, to use them as bait and food. Pi kills the cook in revenge, leaving him the only one alive to be rescued. Which is the allegory, and which is the truth ?? Either one could be the truth of what really happened. The atheist chose to believe the story with the animals. When asked why, he answered, "Because that's the better story", to which our hero says, "And so it goes with God."
And I guess that about sums up the whole issue of God. On the one hand, there is the story that God is the all-knowing, all good,  all powerful Creator from whom, to whom and through whom are all things. On the other hand there is, or rather are, lots of other alternative stories apposite to God, that would deny the existence of God or even allowing that God exists, that He is neither all good nor all powerful, since all evidence in this world seems to point to the contrary, therefore why should He be believed? End of the day, it really depends on which story you prefer. Ultimately God may be a mystery, but faith isn't; it's simply choosing to believe in spite of not having 'pat' answers to life's difficult questions. Ultimately too, I suspect  the reason why many choose not to believe is not because there are no answers, but because God's "answers" are so unsatisfactory, and indeed at times are really 'non' answers to us. And that reduced to its essence is simply an issue of submission, not faith. Which of coz brings us back all the way to Eden, when man first refused to submit to God's 1st and very simple commandment - Don't eat this or else you will die....Adam and Eve chose not to believe. God gave them that freedom anyway, like He still does to us now. And He still lets us exercise that freedom, even if wrongly, like Adam and Eve.

But of coz Adam and Eve never admitted they were wrong in the first place; they just went around justifying/excusing  their actions, blaming each other, and blaming God. Hai , still the same old story today. Why is it we so easily assume that "giving in" or as Pi says, "surrender"  to God means losing our precious freedom? When actually the truth of the matter is when we claim to be free, we actually bind ourselves to ourselves, effectively becoming slaves to ourselves - where is the freedom in that? When will we realise the greatest freedom comes in letting go, not hanging on to our precious freedom? I guess it's hard to accept the paradox that believing in a God who requires submission can set us totally and really free. It's much easier to forget or gloss over the truth that  it was independence (wrongly exercised) that led to disbelief that brought about man's downfall, and simply write off submission as a 'dirty' word, as we find it so 'distasteful' to have to accept a God who won't answer us 'properly and yet require us to somehow "just believe". 

Yet  like the atheist, we all eventually have to face the same question. What are you willing to believe about who God is,  who you are and why you are here?  Would you  rather believe the incredulous story of Jesus who apparently came down from heaven in the form of a baby born of a virgin,  grew up as a hu-man, went around healing sick people, making the blind see, the deaf hear, casting out demons and even raising the dead??  Nah, those are just 'stories' cooked up to make gullible people believe. So would you believe Jesus hung on a cross to (apparently) die for your  sin? Nah, I don't sin (not much anyway), besides I don't need anyone to die for me, thank you very much. Then would you believe somehow this 'dead' Jesus rose alive and then ascended to heaven? Of coz not, more likely a case of mass hallucination and more cooked-up stories . What about believing that Jesus  (apparently again) is coming back to take you home to heaven? Really, that's the joke of the century!. So you don't believe there is a place where the roads are paved with gold and there is no more death, no pain, no tears, and no sorrow? Yea, sure, dream on, fren!.... 

Yep, I agree the story of Jesus Christ is incredulous, incredible, impossible and  inexplicable, but who is to say it's not true? Perhaps you would rather believe that life  is just about living the best you can, doing whatever moral and ethical good you can (as we all know we should anyway, with or without God). So your life purpose is simply to eat, drink and be merry whilst you still draw breath and then get swallowed up by death and either disappear into the dust of the earth, after being eaten by maggots or be transported to some vague other-world which doesn't matter anyhow, since you don't really care one way or another where you end up.

Or maybe you would rather not choose to believe either. To me, that's a cop-out. It's like the juror who won't make up his mind just becoz he feels there isn't 'enough' evidence one way or the other. In a court of law, you have to decide at the close of case based on whatever evidence is available there and then; there's no such luxury as 'wait' or 'KIV' for more evidence to come in. If we dare put God 'on trial', surely it's our responsibility and in all fairness to either believe or disbelieve based on what He has already chosen to disclose of Himself. There's no such thing as 'sitting on the fence' as far as God is concerned. As Jesus puts it, "He who is not with me is against me.."(Luke 11:23)
 
Well, for me, it's a hands down which is the better story. I'd rather choose to believe in a story which offers hope that this life is more than just existing for the moment, no matter how 'good' that existence may be. I'd rather believe and  trust a God who gives me complete freedom to decide whether or not to submit to Him, not by human logic, but by the highest call of love beyond human understanding.  As the author puts it, "If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' then surely we are also permitted doubt....But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.” (I think that means you are just going nowhere in particular)

Well said. And I would add to not believe the better story that there is a God who loves me and who  has prepared the best for me now and in the hereafter is to miss the very meaning and abundance of life itself.  Now to me,  that wouldn't be the 'better' way; in fact it's a rather lousy way to live. 

"And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"  John 11:26