Is religion simply more about control than a god?

[Angrboda]

I'm peripherally familiar with the theory that religion formed as a means to control people. Whether that means that it was intentionally created for the purpose of control may vary from one advocate to another. I'm highly skeptical of the notion that religion arose as an intentional means of controlling people. A more organic explanation is more likely, though I'm still not convinced. My understanding is that the nature of the human mind and our nature as a social animal predispose us to both spiritual experiences and ideas, as well as to ritual behaviors. Even if there were no religion, we would still engage in rituals, sing songs, and dance. I think the more plausible account is that our nature as human beings predisposed us to forming religions and spiritual practices, and those behaviors have been exploited by and through social mechanisms, such as behavioral control through coercion and peer conformity, as well as other social functions, such as group cohesion and enabling of advanced social behaviors. So, in my view, religion didn't form for the purpose of controlling people, but like any other aspect of human nature, it has become organically employed toward that end.

And in hindsight, I realize I didn't bother to fully read the question. No, I don't think religion is in any sense more about control than about God, likely because of my understanding of its origin and general functions originally. I have no idea what metric one would use to answer that question. How do you measure how much something is "about God?" I'm not altogether sure I even can attach meaningful sense to the question.

Side question: Would it be an important understanding if we could demonstrate that the purpose and origin of religion was control?