Dan,

> At one level Physicists believe that "all that exists" are quantum wave interactions between sub-atomic particles. According to this analysis, you and I don't exist <

I think that’s a mistake on the part of some physicists who are not well schooled in philosophy of science. Just because everything is made of X (particles, waves, fields, whatever) it doesn’t mean that things that are not-X don’t exist. To simplify, that would be like saying that the table on which I’m writing doesn’t exist because it is made of wood. You can see that’s nonsense. Rather, what “exists” depends on the level of description, and the level of description depends on what we need to do. If I need to describe subatomic phenomena than all I require are particles; if the level is lower, all I require is fields; but if I’m a biologist, I still need individual organisms, like you and me.

> I think only using a single lens is a restriction that should be loosened in all of these cases <

Which lens would you like me to use? The only two lenses I recognize as effective in discovering things about reality are reason and empirical evidence, and only when they are connected (i.e., not reason alone). I’m open to alternatives, but I don’t see any.

> when they say it is "really" the blood of Christ, they are using a different meaning for the word "really" --- they are being metaphorical <

Since when being metaphorical is the same as to talk abut reality?

> If there is a sense of "realness" which is occurring which is important not to lose, then one must approximate in ones use of language <

But my point is that there is no such sense. If there is, the burden of proof is on your priest to explain it. Mine failed miserably.