I think they're also more likely to turn a blind eye to cases where the buildout of their model doesn't hold true. They could, for example, start out with the belief that the bible is the literal word of God, but hand wave away the fundamental contradictions you can find between different parts of it. (How many angels visited Jesus, exactly who did Cain think would kill him for being a vagabond, etc.) That's not just doing math from different first principles, it's changing the arithmetic rules as you go to fit the answer you want to produce.
I think they're also more likely to turn a blind eye to cases where the buildout of their model doesn't hold true. They could, for example, start out with the belief that the bible is the literal word of God, but hand wave away the fundamental contradictions you can find between different parts of it. (How many angels visited Jesus, exactly who did Cain think would kill him for being a vagabond, etc.) That's not just doing math from different first principles, it's changing the arithmetic rules as you go to fit the answer you want to produce.