Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Angrboda]

I disagree.  The question is what does it mean for it to be natural to believe in gods and the afterlife, and your argument very specifically makes the inference that one interpretation of that meaning should be the default position.  That's a flawed inference.  Whether that instinct refers to something real or imagined is indeed relevant to your argument.  It may be natural to believe in the afterlife for reasons having nothing to do with an actual afterlife.  The null hypothesis isn't about what is natural or conventional, but about the relationships between causes and effects.  There is no reason why a natural concept should necessarily correspond to a veridical one.  Until you demonstrate that there is a relationship, the null hypothesis is that there is none.

At the beginning of every inquiry, there is always a given. You may later conclude that the given was incorrect but that does not negate the fact that you had to start with one.

That's the role of the hypothesis. If you start with a given, then your inquiry is pre-scientific. That's beginning with your conclusion and walking down the path of confirmation bias. A child may naturally presume that there are monsters under the bed. However it is not the job of rational inquiry to start with that as a given and disprove it. That's madness.