Fundamental Arrogance in Christianity

[Neo-Scholastic]

I can think of at least 3 peer-reviewed studies that suggest belief in God is instinctive rather than conventional:

Boston Study; Oxford Study; Skin Conductivity

Of course all of these studies are silent as to whether the instinct refers to something real or only imagined, but that does not affect my argument. It is natural for humans to believe in the divine by default.

Good that you acknowledge my bolded.  But by extension what should one's stance be toward other 'instinctual' beliefs such as a flat earth or the rotation of every other object in the sky around our most special of planets?  Do we just accept that which we're inclined to believe or attempt to gain a more comprehensive perspective?

My everyday stance is to trust but verify. The alternative is to doubt everything until proven otherwise. My point is that while the second has its place it shouldn't be considered the default position all the time for everything.

I cannot go through life on the assumption that my instincts are always wrong, or that my senses are entirety unreliable or that reason is ineffective.

To use Joe's example, children are naturally afraid of the dark for presumably sound evolutionary reasons. Their right and proper default belief is that the nighttime forest is dangerous even if no predators are currently present. Such is highly unlikely in a suburban home and their fears can be soothed by looking under the bed with a flashlight.

That is the extreme example. Our more common experience is that things generally are as they seem to be. The mountains in the distance are most likely not cardboard cutouts. For the reasons I outlined previously there is no compelling reason for considering not-P any more compelling than P with respect to the existence of god and that since our instincts, common experience and thousands of years of cross cultural reports point us in the direction of God's existence that makes it the better default belief.