The problem is not that we've seen an airplane and don't know what to do with it. It's that we've been shown empty space with a claim that there is an airplane there.
First of all, what I'm talking about is really a semantics issue. I think I understand your position, but I also think that saying "I have no position" is a very poor way of communicating it. So, if you feel this is not a semantics issue, then I need a better explanation as to why. At the same time, this could quickly become a silly discussion, so maybe I should let it drop ... but not without one last try.
And rather than describe the mechanics and function, we are told that really, it's very pretty.
This seems to relate to what I said I feel people misunderstand most about my position.
Then we get various factions of airplane believers arguing about whether the seats are leather, fabric, or plastic. One gets the distinct impression that none of the airplane believers have ever seen the plane either.
I know that happens. But you still have a position. Let me try this several different ways (because the "non-position" position comes in many different flavors) and hope we don't stretch the analogy beyond the breaking point.
First, suppose people only see the flying object from a great distance. They'll suggest several possibilities: it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Superman. You may decline to choose from those options since you think evidence is lacking to make a good choice, but that is still a position. You may narrow the choices to a bird and a plane because you think Superman is an absurd option, but that is still a position. You may (as you indicated above) suspect that they didn't see anything at all, but that is still a position - basically one that denies all interpretations of an external event and ascribes it to something internal to the observer - but still a position. I can't think of any reaction to the claim that isn't a position. As I said earlier, the only way to have no position is to never be aware of the claim in the first place.
Prior to the invention of airplanes, people had seen birds fly. From that, they imagined humans could fly as well. It led to many ideas of how it could be done even though no one had ever seen it happen. Many of those ideas were absurd, but that did not make the
idea of flying absurd. And, as much as one might like to make the development of the airplane a logical, scientific progression, in fact there was a lot of guessing involved.
As all those guesses failed, what made people keep trying was an illogical faith - maybe based on the fact that they could keep pointing to birds and say, "They've done it, why can't we?" And, further, no one ever proved that humans
can't fly.
So what is it the religious point to? I suppose that's another area of differences and misunderstanding.