The Antisocial Socialist

If you have two groups of people experiencing love -- one with reciprocating, well-adjusted people (for lack of a better term) -- and the other with abusive, manipulative people -- then yes, those people are going to give you different answers about what the experience of love is like.

...our mileage may vary when working with different data sets.

I think that brings me quite neatly back to my initial point. Some data-sets, such as chronic pain, romantic attraction, and one's experience of love, are... let's say highly resistant to being conveyed to another person. Especially in cases where you're trying to convey the information to someone who is working from a data-set that contradicts yours to such a strong degree that the most rational conclusion they can reach is that you are deluded and your information is suspect. We have a very real, everyday example of exactly such a conflict in the two groups of people experiencing love, referenced in the quote above. Given the non-conveyability and non-transobservability (at least in practice, in the real, present world) of this key data, I don't see any way to escape the conclusion that different people are working from different evidence as they construct and revise their understanding of how the universe works.

I think that the charitable assumption is that at least some religious/spiritual people may have been exposed to a different set of evidence than you have and that, even if not ultimately correct, the hypothesis "yes, there is a supernatural realm that interacts somehow with the material world" may actually be be most rational explanation for the evidence they have available from their lives, their experience of the world.

I don't see anything in the discussion so far that effectively challenges this central point. And as long as that point stands, any starting assumption that discounts this possibility cannot reasonably be defended as "charitable".