Dear Banjo,

OK, I should not have referred to the Newtonian understanding of absolute space and time (as independent of the observer) as “naive”, and should not have assigned it to Kant, whose ideas of space and time are more complex philosophical concepts, although for the purposes of science they were identical with Newton’s.

Also, I have no good understanding of QFT but am almost sure that anything related to the concepts of “spirit” or “soul”, as understood by religions, is not part of it.

If you believe in the possibility of you somehow existing after you died, then you can try to find a scientific interpretation of your belief that does not violate known physical laws. However, I find it pointless - others don’t - to speculate, especially with the use of science, on this “somehow”.

This does not work the other way around: you cannot find in science, be it QFT or what, “evidence” for your “belief in afterlife” since this belief by its definition refers to a dimension of reality that is outside the reach of science.

Another possibility, of course, is to interpret this belief by referring to e.g. the Bible, and this is what Christians usually do when talking about heaven, afterlife, immortality etc.

I don't know how useful it is to get too cerebral about these things...every time I attempt to reason my way into it, I'm more likely to back off in disbelief and irritation.

I have a friend, an elderly church-attending Catholic lady. She's been a practicing catholic all her life, a teacher, a mother - she's reasonably intelligent, sharp and active in her community.

I'm often impressed by her simple faith - she doesn't bang on about it, doesn't bring it in to her daily conversations, she just lives it.

We were discussing the horror and the sudden nature of the demise of those on board MH17 - and she said to me:

"Really, it would just be like going to sleep - and then you'd wake up in heaven."

To her there was no doubt. She's lived and breathed that belief all her life - something instilled long ago in childhood. And she is totally grounded in it, a sort of solidity and assured contentment in her nature...something most of us would envy.

To me, her notion had a childlike simplicity - and was something I could never manage on that subject.

Is that the kind of faith most ordinary folk have? The kind of unquestioning acceptance that makes living a little easier, gives it a point - and eases one off their mortal coil?

Don't seem to be able to manage it myself regarding Christianity or other mainstream religions - yet there's something.....

Poirot,

"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman." (Louis Pasteur)

George,

Perfect!

Pascal says something about true wisdom being reached when one embraces a childlike state. (will look it up as I now have a superb Folio copy of Pensées)

The Tao says exactly the same thing.

Nice story, Poirot, and quote, George, that makes me want to say 'all is vanity' again.
But I think the time of simple faith is long gone and we've created our own earthly responsibilities, which we culpably neglect.
Where I stand, with my 'faith in human foibles', is with the conviction that there is much we don't know, possibly cannot know, about the nature of reality. Atheism (which confidently asserts there is no God and no great mystery), places too much implicit faith in the breadth of human perception, apropos the universal spectrum, which might well include dimensions and realities that don't even register. At least not empirically.
Not that I think we should be overly concerned about these (to the detriment of the natural world).
The problem with the New Atheists, much of the scientific establishment, and our religious institutions by and large, is they're part of our self-created problems and not a solution.

Peter Sellick does not really understand what the teachings attributed to Jesus Christ and set out in the New Testament of the Holy Bible really are. They are a blueprint for representative democracy and when the English in 1297 adopted the New Testament as their Constitution in the Magna Carta the Pope was very upset. He continued to extract gold from sinners in England until Henry VIII ended his gallop by appointing Notaries Public.

Jesus Christ was the most brilliant Social Engineer the world has ever seen, and his teachings have underpinned the one successful democracy in the modern World, the United States of America. All others whether Islamic Caliphates or Republics have ended in misery and the desperation of absolute poverty.

Those who do not really understand have allowed lawyers, the lowest form of life in the eyes of Jesus Christ ( see Luke 11 verses 46 and 52 ) to dominate public life in Australia and we are seeing Revolving Door governments as will probably happen in Victoria this Saturday because long term stable government is dependant on the representative democracy espoused by Jesus Christ for which He was killed. Matthew 18 verses 15-20 was the inspiration for representative democracy adopted in the Magna Carta by English Roman Catholics who were sure they were reading the Scriptures correctly.

I believe Jacqui Lambie, Ricky Muir, Bob Day, David Leyonjhelm, Nick Xenophon, John Madigan, and Dio Wang and Glen Lazarus, if well advised have the ability to restore representative democracy, by showing how the Commonwealth has departed from its Christian roots and gone the way of Karl Marx and Mao Zedung and Lee Kwan Yew. If we want stable long term governments, making laws for the peace order and good government of the Commonwealth these Senators, by raising these issues in the Parliament of the Commonwealth and making its work relevant to every Australian no matter where he or she lives, whatever his or her race or colour, and whatever station in life, then we must get back to these Christian Roots no matter what minorities want.