Allen asked:

Who said, 'Even if there is no God, it is a social necessity that we create one'?

============

I don't know who said it. My concern is rather with whether the proposition expressed is true.

There are two different things that you might mean by the claim that something is 'a social necessity'.
You could be saying that as a matter of sociological law, that thing always obtains wherever human
societies are to be found. Or you could be making the evaluative judgement that the thing in question
is necessary for a society to attain some desirable feature, like order, coherence, stability.

It could be claimed that as a matter of psychological and sociological law, there will always be a 'god'
or 'gods' wherever human societies are to be found. Success, power, money are the 'gods' that
people choose in the absence of any other. One argument that has been given for religious belief, is
that the 'One God' of the monotheistic religions is a far more suitable subject for worship. If we
believe in the existence of a Deity, we may be self-deceived. But we are more self-deceived if we
make success, power, or money our 'god'. - The question posed for the non-believer is whether it is
possible for human beings to do without gods altogether.

'Even if there is no God...'. - One other thing that I would point out is that there is a pragmatic
incoherence in the judgement, 'It is necessary for me to believe P, even though P is false.' And if that
is true for me, then it is also true for 'we'. We cannot worship a Deity while simultaneously recognizing
that it is only a phantom of our own creation. The judgement is therefore one that can only be made
from outside, by an on-looker. 'It is a social necessity for youto create a God, yet in asserting that
fact, I also recognize that your God cannot be a God for me.'

Geoffrey Klempner