The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems. — Jack Cummins

Power imposes belief. at least on the lower orders. the priestly class tells everyone else their gods' demands, and the faithful obey. the system is enforced through a system of bribes, threats and bonding rituals - which, again, include alternate sacrifices and celebrations.
But this only holds true of civilized, organized modern religions of the last 6000 years. for maybe 30,000 years before that, there was as great a diversity of beliefs and practices as there were primitive societies.

Is God the evolving master-class, supreme intelligence? If he desires us to be ultimately good then through it we would only become better?

It could be argued that 'God' is consciousness, but this has been seen in an anthropomorphic way. Both theists and atheists may be talking about 'ultimate reality', but this way it is named and described are so different, as a source of arguments and perspectives.

With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. With diversity, which may have preceded this, there is the possibility of a future return to diversity in the aftermath of so much which has occurred in human history, although from the way the world looks at present there is an extremely long way for this to happen. There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite.

With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. — Jack Cummins

i don't understand 'religion emerged after magic'. Emerged from what? What kind of magic precedes it and how is that magic distinct from religion?
All hierarchies involve coercion, in all aspects of life.

Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. — Jack Cummins

The sacrifice and resurrection of a young, virile god or semi-divine entity in order to benefit humanity appears in many early agrarian civilizations. it represents the cycle of seasons; death in winter, rebirth in spring.
but many other kinds of sacrifice are demanded of the people by civilized gods : the killing of prized humans [unlike like Isaac, most did not get a last-minute reprieve] and valuable livestock; giving food and money to the church, going on pilgrimage, holding fasts and vigils, etc.

There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite. — Jack Cummins

there's no guarantee those power structures will endure.

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

I think this may be answered by looking at it in the context of our evolving ability to think in terms of cause and effect, to make sense of the consequences of whatever may be. Combine this with the quintessential question asked by humans - "Why?" - and you have the foundation for gods, religion, mythology and philosophy.

Of course, this all necessitated our evolution of a mind that could conduct an inner narrative.

To understand the development, one has to understand the intuitive rationality of animism, and the counterintuitive nature of the modern, dead world. One has to disabuse oneself of modernity. — unenlightened

Found that quote:

The tremendously enlarged universe of modern cosmology is conceived as a field of inanimate masses and forces which operate according to the laws of inertia and of quantitative distribution in space. This denuded substratum of all reality could only be arrived at through a progressive expurgation of vital features from the physical record and through strict abstention from projecting into its image our own felt aliveness. In the process the ban on anthropomorphism was extended to zoomorphism in general. What remained is the residue of the reduction toward the properties of mere extension which submit to measurement and hence to mathematics. These properties alone satisfy the requirements of what is now called exact knowledge: and representing the only knowable aspect of nature they, by a tempting substitution, came to be regarded as its essential aspect too: and if this, then as the only real in reality.

This means that the lifeless has become the knowable par excellence and is for that reason also considered the true and only foundation of reality. It is the "natural" as well as the original state of things. Not only in terms of relative quantity but also in terms of ontological genuineness, nonlife is the rule, life the puzzling exception in physical existence.

Accordingly, it is the existence of life within a mechanical universe which now calls for an explanation, and explanation has to be in terms of the lifeless. Left over as a borderline case in the homogeneous physical world-view, life has to be accounted for in the terms of that view. — Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life:Towards a Philosophy of Biology