mac,
Sorry, but I'm always amused when people say things like, "In my entire life...", when our 'entire' lives, in duration and content, are absurdly small and partisan, and hardly a sampling of anything--of nothing objective.
Nevertheless I agree with you and am "deeply sceptical" myself. My experience above is indeed easily dismissed and I might be the world's foremost materialist but, alas, I have other evidence that makes a mockery of that ontology.
We see the world through a cultural prism, which happens to be rationalist. It's moot whether "rationalism" is anything more than a conceit.
But I don't want to derail this thread. My understanding is that Mr Holden was not canvassing anything in the spectrum of the spiritual, merely empathy and nostalgia.

Squeers,

I don't want to derail the thread either, however your comments can't be left unremarked.

I didn't presume to interpret your experiences, so when I say "my entire (adult) life", I mean it, I don't have the 'gene' for spirituality/religion, "mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more. I'll leave it there.

The statements
>>“mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more<<
and
“a finger pointing to the moon is a finger, nothing more”
are both correct in the same sense.

And in both cases you can ask where is the visible/tangible object pointing to. And “nothing” is one, but not the only, possible answer, as a multitude of mystics, Eastern and Western, would testify.

The fact that I myself have never had a mystical or spiritual experience, or if had, felt that it was nothing but my brain states (whatever that means), does not invalidate the experiences of others.

The same as the fact that I do not understand the mathematics and physics involved in superstring theories does not imply that those who have the necessary background could not have reasons to claim that the theory is pointing to something "really existing" out there, because without those backgrounds I cannot critically assess whether, or in what sense, they are right.

mac,
sorry, I didn't mean to offend you and I can relate to your position.
""mystical experiences" are brain states, nothing more"
Perhaps, but not necessarily.
To all intents and purposes I agree with your position. I'm a materialist in all things but conception.
I have good reason (more than brain states) to suspect there's more to reality than is (apparently) apparent, but this is a background refrain for me (a hobby) and I'm much more focussed on and concerned with our material reality.
I can't entirely ignore the metaphysics on either side because it's part of the respective politics. To be a materialist, or rationalist, is not to be somehow above the popular idiom, or the political unconscious. We see the world through a cultural prisom, which happens to be rationalist.

Squeers,

I understand your position, for me, there's no proof or even evidence of any supernatural reality, of course I can't disprove its existence either, however the onus is on the believer. My point was that some people, probably a minority, are born materialists.

George,

"The fact that I myself have never had a mystical or spiritual experience, or if had, felt that it was nothing but my brain states (whatever that means), does not invalidate the experiences of others."

I agree, that's the point I was making from the opposite perspective when I was discussing the subject with Squeers, I wasn't disputing the fact that others might have some kind of numinous experience but that, even during very severe stress, I've never had a 'spiritual' revelation myself.

mac,
>>I've never had a 'spiritual' revelation myself.<<
Neither have I.

>>there's no proof or even evidence of any supernatural reality<<
Agreed. I do not know of any philosophically sophisticated person who would require a proof or evidence in matters of worldview preferences or orientation, since “proof” is used, strictly speaking, only in pure or formal logic or mathematical statements, and “evidence” makes sense only in a trivial everyday context, or when verifying the verisimilitude of scientific theories, or in a court of law.

If you A PRIORI believe (in God, whatever you understand by that) you can find confirmations of your belief in your "spiritual" experience or when admiring the beautiful and mathematically sophisticated picture of the cosmos that present-day physics can offer. If you A PRIORI don't believe, you will find confirmation of your disbelief in the same things.

>>the onus is on the believer<<
Why should it be? Unless, of course, he/she wants to convert you.