I've never accepted the latter, it's trivially obvious IMO that we can also rationalise our way to knowledge, I do both. It baffles me that there are people who think that one or the other is the only means of acquiring and interpreting knowledge.

As a means of acquiring knowledge that we can rely on, because of the way in which it's gathered and can be tested and repeated and used to make testable predictions, etc, I think science is far more reliable and useful than anything else we have but that doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, it's just not useful to us in explaining things.

For me, supernatural explanations are little better than guesses (or worse, they can be the means of enabling dangerous and counter-productive attitudes), and since there's no way to test them they can be anything including the most ridiculous examples I'm sure we could both think of.