I was doing a little research on belief formation based on a thread started by Robbie, and I found the following comment at
"...an additional reasoning bias that leads them to put greater weight on forming beliefs that are observationally adequate rather than beliefs that are a conservative extension of their existing stock."
The context of the paper cited is that forming beliefs that are a conservative extension of our existing stock, is the normal mode of belief formation, and a mode that excludes consideration of the existing stock is psychologically abnormal. (The subject of the paper is a bizarre abnormality.)
It is only natural to build upon existing beliefs in forming new ones, otherwise, every time the hunter gatherers went out, they would have to re-learn what to prey upon, and what to avoid. The hunters who didn't do it this way would be poorly represented in the next generation. (That's a naturalistic explanation.)
But, on this forum, do we, theists and non-theist alike, accept or reject foreign ideas primarily on the basis of whether they fit comfortably into our existing stock? Is the LAST thing we want to do, to perform an actual reconsideration of our existing stock?