As can be seen from many of my posts, I am for all intents, an atheist. Nevertheless, whenever I hear psychological explanations why people "invented" the idea of God(s) I can't help but smirk at the notion that this somehow disproves the existence of the divine. (This is seen in AlmostAtheist's comment "There is no such being").
An explanation is not a refutation. One can explain why humans have aesthetic values by the fact that they aid in survival (or, are spandrels -- nice by-products of evolution that were never intended), but this does fact does not refute those values, or diminish their importance.
If I were a theist I could simply claim that, although there are strong psychological reasons for believeing in God, this situation is something which is part of the divine construction of reality; part of the make-up of human beings which God foresaw and approved.
Even if God does not exist, I am wary of simple explanations as to why people "invented" God. Surely there were/are psychological and emotional reasons, but there are also intellectual ones -- God is a great explanation as to why the flowers grow, why humans can think, why the stars move in such precision, indeed, the whole of the universe is accounted for in all it's seeming design through the work of the great Designer.
Oh, Lord, now I'm sounding like the Watchtower.
B.