It has been suggested that, having laughed at Christopher Columbus and Thomas Edison, we should not laugh at those who assert the possibility of the supernatural, because their claims may also be confirmed at some point in the future.
However, this vague notion of possibility is not enough to establish credibility for most religious claims, especially when the argument is not even fully honest.
There is a basic contradiction in this line of thinking: we must keep our minds open to all possibilities of future supernatural discovery, while simultaneously limiting our menu of choices to a select few ancient tribal narratives.
Because we know less than we may in the future, we should turn to those who knew far less than we do now? That's quite an absurd and confusing position to hold.
I hope that those who would assert this argument would not let themselves become entrenched in any specific supernatural position just because of cultural and traditional biases.
Can those who claim to be open-minded, who exhort others to be open-minded to the possibility of the supernatural, actually be open-minded in practice as they are in preaching?