Statesboro, GA, USA
I'm fairly certain you'd be 100 times more likely to fall back on reason and skepticism in a case where someone professes to see God than with someone claiming a scientific or techonological discovery. Why?
The NewTestament writings are not just accounts of men who professed to "see God" in a philosophical or mystical way. They are accounts of a man whom they believed to be the Jewish Messiah, who embodied the actions of God in time and space. So they are as much historical, as they are theological. And many believe them because alternative theories of Jesus (other than his messianic status, death, and literal bodily ressurrection) make little sense in light of the actual historical things that are known about 1st century Judaism, and the early Christian Church.
I'm reading a book right now by N.T. Wright called "The Challenge of Jesus", where, as a historian, he explains his take on the issues of the claims of the early Christians. I think literal history and context might have much to say to the question you are asking.
There may be reasons that so many people don't find the claims of divine revelation in the Christian tradition hopelessly absurd and far-fetched. They didn't just claim to "see God" in some enigmatic psychological fashion, they saw what he did and wrote it in plain narration. And these accounts, as amazing as they are, seem to fit best in the total history that we know.