Dear Sundurapandian: Having stated my position, I shall now go into silent mode, assume the perspective of an alien anthropologist, and enjoy reading the answers to your question, in an attempt to learn more about human nature, culture, and beliefs. Thank you for providing this opportunity.

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

Surandapandian, I fear that because of the way you ask the question you will elicit a lot of personal beliefs, making an academic discussion among researchers very difficult. I would suggest asking something along these lines:

"What evidence is there to support the idea that immortal souls exist, independently of culturally constructed belief systems?"

Even with a question like this, I suspect that it would be hard to have a reasonable discussion here, considering the strong feelings many people have about the idea of an "immortal soul."

Alicia, not all science can be reduced to quantitative research. Religion has been studied from historical, anthropological, sociological, and neuroscientific perspectives without necessarily falling into the category of "bad science." Religion is an aspect of human culture and is thus an important -indeed essential- theme in the human sciences.

Empirical research:

Ask a medium, not a scientist?

I think, when talking about soul, there is no need to talk about concrete substance. There is something behind us, over the horizon of our understanding. Each of us can feel it or not. And it doesn't matter how it's called...

What Buddhism says about "Soul" - I like to share some excerpts from the link:

Is there an Eternal Soul?

Belief in an eternal soul is a misconception of the human consciousness.

The Soul Theory

With regard to the soul theory, there are three kinds of teachers in the world:

- The first teacher teaches the existence of an eternal ego-entity that outlasts death: He is the eternalist.

- The second teacher teaches a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: He is the materialist.

- The third teacher teaches neither an eternal nor a temporary ego-entity: He is the Buddha.

The Buddha teaches that what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc., are merely conventional terms that do not refer to any real, independent entity. According to Buddhism there is no reason to believe that there is an eternal soul that comes from heaven or that is created by itself and that will transmigrate or proceed straight away either to heaven or hell after death. Buddhists cannot accept that there is anything either in this world or any other world that is eternal or unchangeable. We only cling to ourselves and hope to find something immortal. We are like children who wish to clasp a rainbow. To children, a rainbow is something vivid and real; but the grown-ups know that it is merely an illusion caused by certain rays of light and drops of water. The light is only a series of waves or undulations that have no more reality than the rainbow itself.

Man has done well without discovering the soul. He shows no signs of fatigue or degeneration for not having encountered any soul. No man has produced anything to promote mankind by postulating a soul and its imaginary working. Searching for a soul in man is like searching for something in a dark empty room. But the poor man will never realize that what he is searching for is not in the room. It is very difficult to make such a person understand the futility of his search.

Those who believe in the existence of a soul are not in a position to explain what and where it is. The Buddha's advice is not to waste our time over this unnecessary speculation and devote our time to strive for our salvation. When we have attained perfection then we will be able to realize whether there is a soul or not.

A wandering ascetic named Vacchagotta asked the Buddha whether there was an Atman (self) or not. The story is as follows:

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?

The Buddha is silent.

'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman?

Again the Buddha is silent.

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

After the ascetic has left, Ananda asks the Buddha why He did not answer Vacchagotta's question. The Buddha explains His position:

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.

'Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: 'Is there a Self? If I had answered: 'There is a Self', would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without Self?

'Surely not, Sir.'

'And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?', if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would have created a greater confusion in the already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Atman (Self), but now I haven't got one.' (Samyutta Nikaya).

The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm

When alive of course there is soul! The problem is what happens after death? Have a look at 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

I believe , and the data supports it, that after death one pass into nothingness the absolute inexistence. On the other hand there are some spiritual experiments, with mediums etc. that need a scientific or some explanation. 

By all means, religion merits to be studied. The historical, ethnographical, artistic and literary aspects of religion are academic disciplines that are rich and valuable for the study of religion. Nevertheless, they are not scientific or objective.

What I mean by science, I mean that you have to operationally define the phenomenon of interest, and be able to test the idea which would explain the mechanism about the phenomenon without bias. To do this, one has to reduce religion to observable and quantifiable elements. This is unfair to the religion being studied and it does make for bad science.

This does not mean that religious elements do not exist. It means we have not yet come up with reliable measures to test them. We see that the practice of a religion does in fact impact biology. Buddhist monks and Carmilite nuns who practice mindfulness and prayer are safeguarded from the deleterious effects of stress, and on average, have more gray matter. We just do not know what are the mechanisms which cause these neurobiological changes. We have many limitations to overcome.

Alicia, science is a set of theories and methods for objectively understanding the universe. Human beings are part of this universe. There is nothing magical about us that makes ourselves and all we think, do, and create impervious to the scientific method. Religion may be observed and quantified as well as anything else that happens in the universe. There is good and bad science in every discipline and in every topic for study. What determines the quality of the science is how it is done, not what is being studied. If you personally wish to exclude certain topics from scientific scrutiny, that is your decision and I respect it, but I don't agree with the way you attempt to disqualify the efforts of thousands of colleagues who strive to build and test a more consistent and naturalistic model of reality.

Sundarapandian, thank you for your last post. I have long thought that the Buddhist perspective, in general, is surprisingly compatible with what we now understand from the cumulative body of scientific knowledge.

Dear David - Thanks for your views about the Buddhist perspective. Buddha was very different from other philosophers in his days in the sense that he did not start "Buddhism" as a religion and also he did not ask people to accept his principles on "faith". He advised all to think objectively and practice only what is logical to them. As Dr. Bertrand Russell pointed out, Buddhism has long become a full-fledged religion.

Dear Sundarapandian: I think you hit the nail on the head as far as Buddhism is concerned. The essence of science is to maintain a healthy spirit of skepticism and pass all assertions through the filters of rational analysis. Intuition and creative thought are essential tools in the preliminary phases of any process of inquiry, but then we put the emerging ideas through the filters provided by our scientific toolboxes. Intuitively, it may feel as if we have spirits that inhabit our material bodies. The next step is to try to refute this feeling, to see if it stands up to systematic and open-minded confrontation with all pertinent evidence. This is not necessary within a faith-based ideology, but it is an obligation within the contemporary paradigm of science. There have been many efforts along these lines, some following the fundamental rules of science and others falling into the realm of pseudoscience, because they do not honestly consider all the evidence, or all the possible interpretations of this evidence.

Dear Sundurapandian: Having stated my position, I shall now go into silent mode, assume the perspective of an alien anthropologist, and enjoy reading the answers to your question, in an attempt to learn more about human nature, culture, and beliefs. Thank you for providing this opportunity.

I follow David!!!

Soul or consciousness defines who we are.

1) From (Exodus 3.14,John 8.58,John8.12& 9.5 and Mattew 5.14)[I AM THAT I AM] it is clear that, Jesus Christ referred to our consciousness ‘I am’ as the light of the world.

2) Spritual heart is located two digit right from the centre of our chest, the place where ‘I’ sense appears. It is the soul. [HAPPINESS AND THE ART OF BEING 215]

3) Sri Ramana Maharishi in Naan Yaar explains

• In bhakthi Yoga, when a person worships god with devotion, his consciousness goes and sits in the spiritual heart.So he experiences bliss, nothing but complete happiness.

• In Gnana marga when one enquires about the truth of nature, consciousness goes and sits in the spiritual heart.

• Karma yoga says when work is done in being full consciousness of our divine nature it is perfect and sits in spiritual heart

• In Raja yogam when one concentrates on OM or nama japa or performing ritual rites or prayers or does Pranayamum,or practices kundaline yogam consciousness goes and sits in the spiritual heart.

• One according to one nature has power to be a perfectionst (Divine, Nature,Completeness, The best) by choosing any path or combination of paths

4) When mind works in illusion and attachement ignorance appears , we don’t allow the spiritual heart to work.

5) Sri Aurobindo and Mother says ,When one does any work with’ being consciousness ‘,’ awarness’ of ones divine nature .The work is a best of its kind. Great researchers do the work with high consciousness hence they leave a history behind eg, Edison,Einstein, Newton.

6) Spritualism is not running into forest leaving everthing. But bring divine consciousness and perfection in all work. Divine is present in all , but our ignorant mind stops divine working by indulging in cheap selfish nature.Consistent and constant aspiration of being consiusness of the work done bring happiness in everthing complete ness in everthing perfection in everthing

All living beings, plants, animals, or humans possess consciousness in varying degrees. Consciousness does not arise from matter but is a symptom of the soul, which is an irreducible element of reality. Life can't be created in a laboratory by mixing lifeless chemicals. Niels Bohr, 1922 Nobel Laureate (Physics) said "We can admittedly find nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a thing as consciousness, simply because we have it ourselves. Hence consciousness must be part of nature, or, more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different kind."