Lay a group of unaware people on an abandoned island, they will live purely for sustainance and survival. There will be no greater thought put towards a higher being. They live completely for themselves, without external causation.
But watch as that society progresses, as survival becomes easier; how they grow more comfortable. They begin to ask questions not of the body, but of the soul. Religion and the whole conception of higher beings is inherently aristocratic, born from the luxury of contemplation and pondering.
I don't believe that's due to an intrinsic human need for control. I believe it's born from the mystery of birth, and the fear of death. We seek a reason to exist, and a conclusion to our existence. The easiest solution is that of a loving creator.
Wrong. Abstaining from rule will always be easier. Picture a long room. There's a thin, long, black line spanning from one end to the other. There's a sign that reads 'You may only step on the line to cross'. Is it easier to walk based on that rule, or to just walk on?
Expanding on this question: is it easier to live based on set, pre-determined rules, or to live based on your own? Humans should be able to configure their own moral code.