So far, one fact that simply can't be argued (based on scientific evidence and logic) is: "Nothing comes of nothing, hence, some Thing has always been."
Science, which is based on the notion that repeatable, controllable, soulless manipulation provides a limited area of reliability, namely for that which is repeatable, controllable, and manipulable, promotes the idea of "energy." Hence, scientifically, energy must always have been, in some form, of course even before the "big bang."
The notion of Soul as individing of Creator God, offers a possible Creator God, even a God Who Creates Energy.
Thus, science and religion are at base logically harmonious, for science does not claim knowing of absolute negatives, such as "There is no God;" that type of claim of an absolute negative logically is simple error, for to prove same, would require Omniscience and Omnipresence in all dimensions, etc.
Secondly, there is no logical support for what is termed reductionism. For example, brain scans show "religious experience" and e.g. experience of a beautiful garden to be similar or identical. It is an error of logic to assume that the whole is necessarily indicated by a part termed "physical."
Thirdly, there is the problem of the "gesture of God" which transects physical laws as humans know them. An example is the Host of Light at Garabandal, Spain, early 1960s, which was predicted by an Angel to a little child, then filmed at very close distance by several sceptics, as a perfect disk of Light coalescing in air above the young child's open mouth. As this kind of event is neither replicable nor controllable, science does not comment on it. The closest scientists have come to investigating such activity is e.g. Dr. William Tiller's investigation of human intention to alter quantum electronic systems: "Psychoenergetic Science," http://www.tiller.org does involve a group of world-class scientists, in the engineering and biological sciences at Stanford and elsewhere, who have designed good experiments showing just that, and who have developed an SU(2)-type theoretic (and this before superstring theory) to explain how biofield and intention move in dimensions beyond the physical.
Non-local, non-EMF human telepathy is also well-demonstrated by University scientists' experiments, beginning with Grinberg-Zylberbaum in 1993, and replicated several times since by other interested research teams.
There are of course well-respected physicists, such as Goswami, "God Is not Dead," and Stapp, "The Mindful Universe," who are doing yeoman work to heal the unreasonable scepticism and clean up the experimental protocols. Stapp in particular has identified a key error in Dennett's 1990s attempt to reduce psi by claiming an tracable identity in matter vis a vis Mind, when in fact far before then it is a well-established truth in quantum mechanics that decoherence of a wave (e.g. "Mind" as soliton or Plotinian One) is in fact able to move into physicality without any Mass or Energy "tracing." (The Grinberg-Zylberbaum type of experiment, using Faraday cages, etc., confirms this for human nonlocal telepathy.)
People who attempt to state that "no evidence" exists for Spirit, telepathy, psi intentionality, etc., simply are ignorant of the above-mentioned work, or have some other psychologistic agenda. Even scientists, in surveys, tend to have around 25% or more "religious" folk in their midst, which is remarkable for a labor which self-selects for soulless objectivism.
The major issue for the Abrahamic and Hindu faiths is one of Soul. It is well-known that focus develops essentialism (Sartre's "existence precedes essence," for example). If one devotes energy and time as work in e.g. science and other worldly academics and labor for 8 hours a day, and 5 minutes of sincere love of God and time in Scripture and/or meditation, it is rather obvious, from a physics/work/sowing standpoint, that almost an 100 to 1 sowing ratio obtains. This, when combined with living in a very seductive culture, with few conversations truly energized, about Godliness, ups the relative vectors to well over 200 to 1 in sowing, re physis and Soul.
Imagining heaven is of course a "relief," and if Heaven Is, it should be even more than "relief," but even "resonance."
Finally, family issues tend to affect one's reality in often-unexpected manners. E.g., dislike of father-mother authority, the lure of being able to do as you will after you move to your own household, tend to ally worldly tension-reduction (after a focused day at the laboratory bench, a beer with buddies and a quick flick, and a doze in the sack, none of which is likely Soul-enhancing) rather than e.g. having one day a week in which you relax without boogeying, love the Lord, appreciate the beauty of precision and perfection as it occasionally manifests in Nature, etc.
Consider giving a read to C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce," realize that dreams and intentions to be God-taught and protected are often keys to Soul.
Other good reads: "The Path of the Higher Self, " Mark Prophet, "Extraordinary Knowing," Elizabeth Mayer, "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock, "The Master of Lucid Dreams," Olga Kharitidi, "Testimony of Light," Helen Greaves, "Expecting Adam," Martha Beck, "In Heaven So on Earth," M. Scott Peck, M.D., "Hope for the World: Spiritual Galvanoplasty," O. M. Aivanhov, "Children Who Remember Past Lives," Ian Stevenson, M.D., "Autobiography of a Yogi," Yognananda, "Life before Life," Jim Tucker, M.D., "Babies Remember Birth," David Chamberlain, Ph.D., "Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton.
http://www.noetic.org http://www.quantumbrain.org http://www.heartmath.org http://www.carolbowman.com
http://www.dreamhealer.com http://www.dreamviews.com
You probably are "majoring" in the Spirit in Truth, which closely outpictures in science, healing arts, finance, music, and maths. A question to ask: given simple directions ("Love God completely, love colleague as Self, love as Christ, Truth, loves"), one gains an Infinite Good by the finite sowing; contrariwise, to lose an infinity of eternal, expanding Joy and Good by ignoring Pascal's wager is infinitely tragic, no?