I suspect that Kierkegaard's status as the intellectual father of existentialism hinders such an acceptance....
I suspect it is a desire to find observations to verify a stipulated conclusion--a desire to have it both ways, both to accept the validity of reason and the senses but also to accept predetermined beliefs obtained without need of those faculties.
I think Kierkegaard can provide a nice solution by allowing people to objectively observe then conclude (rather than the other way around) and still hold tight to whatever mystical beliefs they wish to stipulate. It provides a kind of epistemological separation of the real and the mystical so that people can still rationally function in this world.
(And it eliminates the need for all these silly, misguided, and contorted arguments.)