Between formal and substantive authority

Hello Rabbi Michael,
From what I understand, you believe that the Sages (Talmud, etc.) have only formal authority and only over the halakha itself. This is in contrast to matters of thought and viewpoint, where they have no substantive authority at all (if authority even exists in this area), and one can listen to their words and accept or not accept them.
But it is impossible to deny that there are laws that are based on a certain view.
Let’s take the resurrection of the dead, for example. And there was a man who thought with himself and came to the conclusion that there could be no resurrection of the dead, no matter what. And because the Sages have no substantial authority over what he thinks is right or wrong – he continues to deny the resurrection of the dead, but accepts all the other tenets of Judaism as a whole – what will he do when he reaches the eighteen words ‘And you are faithful to raise the dead’? Because of the formal authority, he is obligated: 1. To pray three times a day. 2. Obliged to this text specifically. 3. Obliged to mean the words (otherwise he would not have fulfilled his obligation).
So what can such a person do? He cannot change the law (because of formal authority). But what can he do? He is convinced that there can be no resurrection of the dead.
What courses of action do you see here? I see two here: 1. Either he will change the text/say without intending to, etc., because he accepts the sages only where they do not contradict his view. 2. Accept the halacha, say the prayer as it is written, but be humble and understand that he does not know everything even when he feels he is sufficiently convinced.
I would love to hear your comments (of course, the resurrection of the dead and the eighteen-day prayer are just examples, it’s not critical if I wasn’t accurate in them).