I agree with you. Everything's read back into the experience, which is why such experiences wind up getting interpreted within the context of the particular religious/cultural milieu of the experiencer.

To resolve the opposition, we must integrate them. There are two basic ways to integrate them. One is with love being dominant, and one is with fear being dominant.

This gives rise to wonder (mysterium fascinans), and terror (mysterium tremendum).

The core problem, as your article somewhat touches on, is that fear is stronger/more-powerful than love, and so what tends to prevail is terror. It takes an additional oomph to weaken the fear so that wonder can arise. That 'oomph' comes from intelligence.

Awe is our experience of the Unknown. We naturally fear the Unknown (terror), but when we investigate, and learn, we can conquer that fear, and we no longer are gripped by terror, but are able to experience wonder.

Wonder is a great word because it has several complementary meanings that all seem to work well with science and atheism. First, wonder is an emotion, as I've described. It is the 'religious' emotion. And so, it can be shown that wonder is a natural emotion that all humans share, including atheists. This destroys the last remaining 'argument' religions use, the Argument from Wonder. In fact, we can show that the wonder we experience from our naturalistic understanding of the universe is *greater* than the wonder you get from Bronze Age mythology.

Second, wonder is a verb, meaning to explore and especially to ask questions. Clearly, this goes hand-in-hand with science, skepticism, naturalism, etc.

Third, wonder is a noun, which indicates the great wonders we can not only imagine, but bring about through our efforts to better the world through understanding. Wonder provides a positive vision of the future, rather than merely negating superstition, proposes positive solutions to real problems.

I find that as I learn more about the world, I feel more struck by awe and wonder, not less. The things we're learning about how the universe works are so deeply strange, so thoroughly counter to ordinary human experience... I don't see how you could learn about them and not be gobsmacked.

But what is experienced? Generalized awe, profound feelings, overwhelming this or that. But when this experience is listed as one of the evidences of "God" I usually ask:

What's the definition of "God"? Most will respond detailing the omnimax properties of the alleged deity: omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, the creator, and so forth. But how are these properties manifest in the religious experience? They cannot be.

For example, how is omniscience garnered from the item of the experience? How was the knowledge of "God" tested? Obviously that task is impossible.

Similarly with omnipotence. One cannot test the perceived "God" to determine it can do all things.

I conclude reports of religious experience are utterly without merit.

I find if I contemplate my diving and involve God it diminishes my experience. I find nothing wonderous about thinking that all life and activity I see underwater was created by some mystical hand wave. It seems insulting and I fail to see how anyone can appreciate anything by when thinking in those terms. I marvel at the evidence of millions upon millions of years of evolution of all the fish, plants and animals right before my eyes. I think of all the tiny but crucial chemical reactions that go on daily. That is awe inspiring.

Personally I find God to be a human concept that makes it easier for people to compartmentalise overwhelming ideas or feelings and that relieves them of their need to investigate- and/or think.

My family and I had a nice day trip there this past February during our vacation in Puerto Rico. Didn't get to see Arecibo like you did though. That will have to wait for another trip.

BTW, this post has a lot in common with the Spanish Inquisitor's most recent post.