Why did man create religion?

Where does your moral will come from? Its not like we were really born with much more than instincts and general inclinations for this or that. By the time a person even understand that there is such a top level conscious function as introspection, one's moral will has been formed for the most part by his/her surroundings.

All of which surroundings are parts of institutionalized moral building structures interlocking with each other to help a person form an identity and an ideology.

The Majority of the moral will has been formed (assuming we are talking about noun will and not the verb will). Introspection inspects these things internally of course. Introspection does not change these things if one feels the need to change them it is often introduced from other outside stimulative forces.

How many original ideas does a person really have. .

however there is no way once a person has introspected, chosen what is right for them, that s/he cannot telegraph this choice in most every action committed..

In Grouping is a natural phenomenon that huamns need. If it weren't it wouldn't be "The Norm". In what way is a person that has joined a particular sect not spiritual? The desire to be part of a like thinking group and spirituality are not related. I desired to be a part of a Judo Club and the Toast Masters...

Also there the problem of assuming that people in an esablished religion have been duped, brainwashed, or at the very least never have (rationally introspected). ...

It is pure naivete to assume that striving for a transcendental goal, whatever it may be is 1) not spiritual, 2) irrational and 3) without constant internal dialogue between the empirical world and the subjective transcendental world....

This i agree with very much with minor adendums.
Unique spiritual path: everyone has one, even in a highly organized religion.
Critical thought: People think critically all the time, it just happens that with the hyper technological state of the world, it is applied critical thought.

Our very modern system of society is based on the influence of the many over the few. When i vote I am in effect attempting to impose my will over those with whom I disagree. There is no communal existence without the implication of leverage. Human social structure ends up being a pack mentality. Every group of friends has a hierarchy. Every person by simply having an opinion differing from another's is expressing "my opinion is bettere than yours, because it is my opinion" .

In essence what I am trying to get at here is that uniformity and group membership is natural but almost an illusion, as mo matter what everyone is always on their own unique path.

Agreed. Indeed there'd be no point to introspection if all decisions were imprinted in such a linear fashion. Take the case where the woman was put in jail for 15 days for allowing the class to name their teddy bear Muhammad. I have no problem with coming to some sort of spiritual conclusions that there is this divinity and a prophet named Muhammad. If let's say this is all fine, why can a decision that affects the community be guided strictly by a subjective, spiritual view? (Because if ten people were Christian, that is not saying there is unity of a spiritual path that one can term 'Christianity', but rather, it is ten separate/subjective spiritual path/tangents of the same objective). The community cannot possibly have the same views on this Muhammad figure, and it would be silly to call it moral to force such uniformity upon the community.

So what is the intrinsic property of wanting to establish the morals rather than the morality undergo never-ending change, progression(I would hope, though perhaps na?ve of me to assert)? I mean, I would certainly hope we are affected morally through our surroundings, but certainly not without at least a dominating sense of introspect to call it spirituality.

Moral building structures are not in place to help people have unique, individual identities and/or ideologies. They are there simply out of efficiency/uniformity... well a direct method of efficiency anyways. It is illogical to assume moral building is communal rather than egocentric. Perhaps spirituality needs to stipulate an enlightened self interest approach?

Moral building structures are in place to help people develop ideology and identity. They are everywhere, necessary, and unavoidable. You are part of and have been indoctrinated, by family, school language community, neighborhood, local, state, federal, and world governments, other language communities, various levels and factions of educational system, economic, geographic, areal, and locations? the list is infinite. You are a member by default of most of these, every one of which has directly influenced your unique personal ideology and identity. They have in effect built your morals before you knew that there were morals to be built.

Coercion is an equivalent of the word "force". Influence + spirituality = coercion doesn't make any sense. Let's break this down: Influence, the influence of other people on the way in which you live; spirituality, seeking meaning in life. Everyone is always influenced by others, unless you live on a deserted island. That people are influenced by their peers, and that people seek meaning in life, are two premises which do not imply the conclusion that a spiritual community (group of like minded spiritual seekers) coerces (forces) people to do anything.

Let's ask ourselves: what is the nature of the influence in a spiritual community. It might be coercion, and sometimes is coercion, but that's not something inherent in any given spiritual community.

They don't do this for the betterment of individuals. They have an effect of the identity sure. But in no way is this intended to help the individual be an individual.

I'm not sure if this man has been mentioned before, but Joseph Campbell, a well-known American mythologist delved pretty far into the question posed here. Before his death, he was working on a large-format, illustrated series entitled: The Historical Atlas of World Mythology. Unfortunately, he died before he could finish, but he wrote many other works dealing with this very subject. He divided humanity's mythological tendencies into four stages:

• The Way of the Animal Powers -- the myths of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers which focus on shamanism and animal totems.
  
• The Way of the Seeded Earth -- the myths of Neolithic, agrarian cultures which focus upon a mother goddess and associated fertility rites.
  
• The Way of the Celestial Lights -- the myths of Bronze Age city-states with pantheons of gods ruling from the heavens, led by a masculine god-king.
  
• The Way of Man -- religion and philosophy as it developed after the Axial Age(c. 6th century BC), in which the mythic imagery of previous eras was made consciously metaphorical, reinterpreted as referring to psycho-spiritual, not literal-historical, matters. This transition is evidenced in the East by Buddhism, Vedanta and philosophical Taoism; and in the West by the Mystery Cults, Platonism, Christianity and Gnosticism.
  

Joseph Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm quite curious how our mysticism will evolve over the next thousand years. What directions will our modern religions take?