When studying past civilizations it had been discovered that some ancient societies worshipped many gods. After digging deeper into some of these religions it was found that they had believed that these gods had great powers and that they used those powers to control all natural functions. They did not understand how the natural world worked so they figured that it must be gods that were controlling it. So my question is this: if modern people know that the reason ancient people believed in gods was only to help them understand their world, how does modern man justify believing in a God when science has given us most of the answers on how our world works and does not seem to support the idea of a God?
My answer is that you can not disprove god. You can't disprove a negative. When it comes to default positions there are 3.
Something is true until proven false
Something is possible until proven true/false
Something is untrue unless proven true.
It's the same thing with big foot, people still believe in it.
I still remember, as a child, being taught the song "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so". The next verse talked about how children especially are under his protection because "they are weak but he is strong". It would be very comforting to accept the message that there's a supernatural, omnipotent protector right now looking out for me. I think that's part of the answer; as Wilhelm Reich postulated, people often seem to desire a dictatorial protector to run their lives, and a God person would fulfill that role. However, I accept personal responsibility for my life, and I know that scientifically there is almost certainly no God. (I wouldn't mind a Goddess, though...)
Because they feel small and want to think they are not ultimately in control of their life. Organized religion remains to try to control the crowd and to extort money from them.
Trump's 35%-40% approval rate shows you that some people will believe anything even though they know they are being lied to! I view that as more of a mental deficiency than an actual chosen belief!
Many people are innately gullible. That seems like something that evolved to help us to stay in groups. But by not being constrained to facts or truth testing, religions can make up whatever kinds of stories that sound good to people. Religion will always have that advantage over truth.
One has to be careful of scientism and the dogma that "science has answered most of our questions" because as a scientist myself, I can tell you that the number of unresolved questions in the world outnumber the number of answers.
It is because of this understanding that most people (68%) see no conflict between their religious beliefs and their scientific knowledge  and why a small majority (51%) of scientists hold onto religious beliefs in the USA  and across the world .
The idea that there is conflict is mostly perpetuated by non-scientists, atheists and theist alike, in an attempt to "bandwagon" people into thinking that they have science on their side when in fact they don't.
How? The same way modern people believe in political parties. Religion and politics are different aces from the same deck of cards. One has a dogma, the other has a party platform. Both subsist on selling fear, hope, and empty promises of a better life. Both demand unquestioned loyalty, etc.
I really don't know the answer to this but I find it puzzling. Belief in gods is so ridiculous that sometimes I'm tempted to think that all believers should be declared "not of sound mind" (or whatever the legal formula is) and locked up for their own good And yet I know that there are plenty of religious people who are intelligent or kind or capable and sometimes even all three I suspect that they don't believe in god in the same way that they believe 2 plus 2 equals 4. "Belief" is used for both things, although they are different. Perhaps we could follow the nomenclature of diabetes? We could talk about "Type 1 belief" or "Type 2 belief". What do you think? Is there a Nobel Prize here?