The thought experiment:
S's total evidence is strongly against the truth of ES.
That Es is true is not a properly basic belief of S or if it is it is swamped by the evidence.

S realizes that it is irrational (not just NOT rational) to believe in ES.
S has emunah that ES is true.
Note: Not all emunah need be irrational. But here it is.
S believes that ES is true because S does not feel bound by demands of rationality in this case.
A am making no EPISTEMIC normative claim on behalf of S's belief.
My question is whether there can be made a non-epistemic normative claim on behalf of S's belief that trumps any epistemic objection.
What would have to be the nature of emunah in this case - loyalty to God? Hearing God's voice? Etc. Yehuda