My thoughts on this are pretty simple, really. If supernatural stuff exists... and I'm not one to say that it does or doesnt (I like to just say "I have no bloody clue") then to me, it's simply stuff that our science hasnt been able to get at yet. With a high enough level of science, things like that maybe COULD be understood. It actually kinda reminds me of a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, where this guy (a space traveller) had inadvertantly been at light-speed for too long, and upon coming back to Earth, found that humans were on their way towards becoming Q-like entities (the Q being from Star Trek, for those that dont know, in that series they are stupidly powerful beings with the ability to do basically anything on any scale, just by thinking about it), and it was explained to him that a scientific breakthrough had discovered that the "soul/spirit" was real, and existed as a quantum phenomenon, and could be enhanced somehow by science (because hey, sci-fi! May as well go big, right?), so they did exactly that and hit some sort of point of ascension. I always thought this was a pretty cool story bit, as it merged something that's usually considered supernatural/religious with science. And it goes along with my own way of thinking.
What bugs me, usually, is that so very, VERY many science-minded people have this bizarre assumption that the scientists of our silly planet know everything and can do no wrong; if they have not found it, CLEARLY it doesnt exist. Despite that we cant even understand our own bodies entirely, or even get off of this one stupid planet, unless we want to fly a few people to Mars at the speed of a dead frog in sludge. Yet still, that belief in the "Of COURSE they're correct because they havent found evidence" idea remains. I, personally, have always found this illogical. This is part of why I like to say "I simply dont know", which is the honest truth. Like ghosts for instance... maybe they exist, maybe they dont. How the heck should I know? I know one thing though, I'm not going to make assumptions in either direction. I simply acknowledge for the possibility, and also acknowledge that if it IS there, it's beyond our ability to get at right now. Whenever someone points out "Well there's just no evidence at all for the existence of ghosts (or whatever)" I always give the same response: "But you cant prove that there ARENT any. What you have is a lack of evidence. I have to tell you that a lack of evidence, in fact, is not evidence; thus the word "lack". By that same logic, I have 1000 pies in my room, which is proven by the lack of pies in my room".
Of course, this also applies to the religious-minded people out there, who tend to have that same "Of COURSE this is right!" mentality. So neither side is really exempt from that way of thinking. Natural psychology, I guess.
Though, to me, as long as neither side is pestering/demeaning the others for their beliefs or thoughts on the matter, then all is fine by me. Sadly, in alot of topics about such things, you get people jumping in just to say "NO, that's DEFINITELY wrong, you're ALL WRONG and this is stupid", which... yeah, doesnt help. I wish people wouldnt do that. It happens ALOT on a certain other forum I go to, and it's always irritating to see. Doesnt matter which side is doing it (and both of them do), it's still bad.
I always just refuse to argue about it though. I'll state my own opinion on the matter (which is basically what I did here) and if someone else disagrees.... oh well. That's fine. I'm not going to get into an arguement with them.