Occam’s Razor explains that if there are two explanations for something, the odds of being correct favor the one that requires the fewest assumptions.
Our ancient book, the Bible, is an interesting place to consider Occam’s Razor. From the point of view of people in the faith, the reason the Bible was written was because God wanted it written. At least that is a way to paraphrase believers for this purpose.
Skeptics would simply say the Bible was written by local peoples for their own purposes at the time. The question is, which of these two explanations require the fewest assumptions?
The assumptions of skeptics is that there were local people who knew how to write and wanted people to believe certain things for their own self serving reasons.
The explanation that God wrote or guided the writing of the Bible requires first invisible God which no one has seen. Then, it assumes the god was able to communicate to humans what it wanted written even though there has never been verification this communication is even possible.
Thus, one explanation requires far flung and supernatural assumptions. The other does not.
Why then would millions more people prefer the least likely of the two explanations over the more likely? My explanation is that the majority of people have some need for the least likely to be true. Occam did not factor in such a need.
It frustrates rational people that the majority prefer ideas about magical events and invisible beings. However, it makes religion fascinating.