Life of Pi - An Analysis

I read this book. I liked the writer's inventiveness in plot and characterization. I believe that, literary devices, inventiveness of plot, and use of language, rather than the writer's philosophical worldview, make a book readable and enjoyable. As I won't be discussing the literary features of the book but its philosophical world-view, I am calling this article an analysis.

I object to three specific points regarding the writer's world-view. They are:
Eclecticism:
The writer tries to highlight the eclecticism of Pi. The problem is that Hinduism, as understood today, is actually Smartavad. There are many other separate religions like Shaivavad, Shaktavad, and Vaisnava Dharma subsumed under the label Hinduism. The doctrine of Smartavad says that all paths to God are equally valid. Hence, eclecticism is the same as Hinduism (Smartavad). My objections to author's eclecticism are:

1- The writer refers to Vishnu but never refers to Shiva. Is the writer soft pedaling Vishnu Dharma in the name of Hinduism?

2- If a Shaiva and Vaishnava can be called as members of the same faith, why can't a Muslim and a Shaiva be members of the same faith? Is the inability of "Hinduism" to subsume Islam and Christianity related to the perceived foreign origin of these religions? In that case, is the existence of India as a political entity, the only barrier to eclecticism for Indians? The foreignness of Islam and Christianity exists only if India, the political entity, exists.
This supposition is dangerous.

3- Does the author imply that "Hinduism" was created as a response to the threat from Islam/Christianity? The various religions currently subsumed under Hinduism had more in common with each other than they had with Islam/Christianity and hence they coalesced. In that case, isn't the writer saying that Hinduism will always be at loggerheads with Islam and Christianity as the supposed conflict with is central to their existence?

Aesthetic considerations:
The writer uses an inventive way to try and prove the existence of God. He tells two stories and asks the people about their opinion on the stories. As both stories do not meet the needs of the listeners, he asks them to consider the more interesting story as true. And he proceeds to make the same demand with respect to God.

The problem with this approach is two-fold:

1- Some people may consider the story without animals to be more interesting. Aesthetic tastes are not universal.

2- There is no reason to believe that the story of a Universe with God will be more aesthetically pleasing to more people than a Universe without God. I do believe in God but I sincerely believe that all attempts to convince people of God's existence are useless. Those who believe will believe and those who have doubts will have doubts.

Agnosticism:

The writer seems to have a problem with agnosticism and doubt. He seems to believe that having doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to having immobility as a mode of transportation. However, renowned thinkers like Edward De Bono, believe that it was the embracing of doubt and hypotheses that enabled Western Civilization to move ahead of the Chinese, who wanted to move from certainty to certainty. It seems that it is not doubt but its absence that makes society immobile.