>Science doesn't really tell us what happens to your consciousness after death.
There are a lot of things science doesn't currently tell us. That doesn't mean every possible alternative is equally reasonable.
Either consciousness is physical or non-physical. If it's physical, then everything we know about the brain and the laws of physics suggests that it can't survive the death of the brain. If it's non-physical, then it must still interact with the quantum fields of physics. Otherwise, how would we have any experience of physical reality? The slogan in these situations is "show me the equations". If you're claiming that there is a non-physical substance that interacts with quantum fields, there should be equations governing these interactions. Until these equations have been provided and confirmed to predict the results of experiments, why should we believe in it?
>Death is ultimately a natural part of life
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural does not automatically make it good. If 100 years on this rock is better than 25, why wouldn't 1000 years be better than 100?
There are a lot of things science doesn't currently tell us. That doesn't mean every possible alternative is equally reasonable.
Either consciousness is physical or non-physical. If it's physical, then everything we know about the brain and the laws of physics suggests that it can't survive the death of the brain. If it's non-physical, then it must still interact with the quantum fields of physics. Otherwise, how would we have any experience of physical reality? The slogan in these situations is "show me the equations". If you're claiming that there is a non-physical substance that interacts with quantum fields, there should be equations governing these interactions. Until these equations have been provided and confirmed to predict the results of experiments, why should we believe in it?
>Death is ultimately a natural part of life
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural does not automatically make it good. If 100 years on this rock is better than 25, why wouldn't 1000 years be better than 100?