"But it seems to be since we divorced science from religion, things started to go off track, when we adopted a new god of profit, and invented a new way to enslave people with debt."

I think there are two ways of seeing this. One is to point out that science was never that religious to begin with, even in its infancy in the days of Aristotle, Pythagoras, and others. A second way to see it is to look at the Scientific Revolution as the starting point for science in the West. But even from this view, I think it can be noted that profit really entered the scene in its strongest form with capitalism. While modern capitalism has been around since the Renaissance, industrialization was what made profiteering possible on a scale like no other before it. And scientists like Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes were already introducing ideas that questioned the religious establishment at least a century or so before the Industrial Revolution.

Science today has its problems with being tied to business interests, publish or perish models of academic publication, and other things. But I don't think divorcing science and religion was what caused this. Capitalism and industrialization were far more direct causes, I'd argue.

"Why doesn’t science at least still try to establish the fundamental reason we have any sense of good or bad whatsoever, even when we think we are not religious? Because there is no profit there."

I disagree. I think the reason why science doesn't try this is predominantly methodological. David Hume and other famous philosophers have written about what's known as the is-ought problem. This is a problem that comes from inferring that there is a relationship between what is and what should be. G.E. Moore refined this into the naturalistic fallacy, which is committed when we identify moral properties as natural properties.

Science has largely confined itself to a naturalistic methodology; that is, it concerns itself with describing what exists. Concepts of good and bad are prescriptive, meaning that they talk about what should be, how you should act, and so on. This is kinda why the latter is more often left to the domain of religion or ethics, and is regularly distinguished from practicing science. If we look at the history of "race" science during the 1800s, too, we see examples of scientists who were violating these distinctions specifically to justify racist policies and actions against minority groups. Which is partly why I would say it's a good thing science no longer tries to over-extend itself into the realm of ethics.

And that really is where I'd say things fall on terms of good and bad when we are not religious. There is a long, rich history of ethics and moral philosophy that pre-dates Christianity and many other religions. This history isn't just limited to the West, either. I believe ethics has far more to teach us about these issues than science or religion do. It would have to be a certain kind of ethics, though, one that's non-colonialist, self-scrutinizing, and more. But I think this can be a far better motivation for one to keep up the fight against systemic injustice than science or religion can be.