It's interesting how you criticize the use of hypothetical scenarios, yet Gervais employs the same tactic in his argument. He imagines a world without books and then makes claims about what would be rediscovered. Both approaches utilize thought experiments to explore deeper ideas. You simply don't like the fact that Gervais's argument is comically wrong, which offends you because you cherish the same beliefs.

So you resort to ad hominem attacks by suggesting my ideas are influenced by "New Age" nonsense philosophy. This attempts to discredit the article based on perceived associations rather than engaging with its substance.

In any case, your comments are full of contradiction and hard to take seriously. For example, you initially criticize the article for being based on "imaginary situations" but then argue that people in those situations would eventually face reality. This is contradictory, as it acknowledges the potential for those hypothetical scenarios to have implications for understanding the role of belief in science. So which is it?

Remember, constructive criticism is always welcome, but let's ensure our dialogue remains focused on the core ideas and avoids ad hominem attacks or misrepresentations. True intellectual growth often stems from challenging our preconceived notions and engaging with diverse perspectives. Good luck, friend.