Who credited religion with creating trust? It’s fairly obvious to me that people trusting each other is the only way any religious ideas could take hold (barring actual evidence which we all know doesn’t exist). It’s simply a part of being a social animal. Wolves trust each other. All social animals have some level of implicit trust in their fellows. Trust 100% came before religion. I’m interested to know who says otherwise?

I see no good in any religion.

Religions are full of shit and love taking credit for things they originally actively opposed.

the simple answer is NO.

"Secular ethics appear to believe that we can arrive at the "good moral code" without having to resort to an all powerful and supernatural arbiter of justice. This belief is no more logical than a belief in God, I think."

Face and Palm

How do YOU define a "good moral code?"

Have you researched the moral behavior (killing rape etc.) of the individuals in societies that hold high religious standards as apposed to secular societies? or for that matter, demographics of religious incarcerated vs not religious?

If so, how do you reconcile these standards for good moral behavior are often inversely related to a person's religious assertions?

How do you justify your debasing a moral code without the belief in an "all powerful and supernatural arbiter" as being equivalent to the fallacious belief in a god with no evidence?

Religions have never 'created' trust, they have simply DEMANDED it from ALL.

I don't think secularists say secular ethics should work better than ethics that are predicated on existence of God. They say they work equally well, perhaps better and no god is needed, required or necessary.

Huh ? I don't think I've ever before read a more circuitous load of nonsense.

Evolutionary theory supports the basic premise of ethics. Humans have to rely on others to survive and propagate, so cooperation, that resulted in a better quality of life and extended life span, doesn't require divine inspiration.

“Religion has been credited with creating trust in our prehistoric human societies, eventually leading to social/economic growth.”

Who said this?
Some archeologists propose that Neanderthal societies may also have practiced totemism or animal worship.
But “creating trust?”
I doubt that is what lead to social/economic growth.

“Social politics and personal ethics which enabled this growth were regulated by religious dictums.”

There is no evidence of this.

“Today, we find the ancient religions anachronistic because they don't correspond to our social realities. Seldom are they consistent with the prevalent scientific knowledge.”

If you are referring to prehistoric religions I doubt there is anything but a small population practicing totemism. Organized religions as we know them are just over 2000 years old. That’s hardly ancient in comparison to prehistoric society.

“our society (regardless of where you are) is extremely affected by our religious history. Can we excise only the bad parts of religion's effects (for example, irrational beliefs in God, or close mindedness) without losing the good parts religion has conferred to our societies?”

Your connection is a fallacy
‘God, gods, Allah, Gaia, religion, or whatever term you want to use’ do not equal of infer morality

I would argue that I am more ‘Christian’ then most Christians, yet I have no religion.

We have the Ears of God molesting children and performing all sorts of atrocities.

Religion serves a few purposes but it has one major importance for people.
It offers relief of the fear of death.
Knowing we will all die is the bane of higher levels of thinking. Providing an answer offers relief and something to look towards when the end draws near.

It also answers the unanswerable questions of life. “I don’t know because god wants it that way.”

Most of us here are willing to accept that when the lights turn out we are worm food.

I find your post lacking evidence and obscured by an inaccurate timeline. I also find it odd that you think religion offers a moral code that we couldn’t obtain on our own.

I don't believe in God and find religions detestable. I feel no compunction to rape, steal, kill? I would imagine the overwhelming number of people on this site don't either. So what is your point?

You are very biased by using God instead of gods or divine authorities.
" ... there is no apparent reason why secular ethics should work better than ethics that are predicated on existence of God." Well turn it around: There is no apparent reason why ethics that are predicated on existence of a god or gods or any divine authority should work better than secular ethics.

"Secular ethics appear to believe that we can arrive at the "good moral code" without having to resort to an all powerful and supernatural arbiter of justice." With all due respect but here you appear to be going totally off the tracks. secular ethics is a concept. Concept exist but cannot to anything.

TRUST? Ha ha ha ha ha . . . .

Is it credited? Who gave this accreditation? Did religion just endow itself with this credit?

I think your point is a good one. This is how we got here. In theory, we can now swap secular for religious values and Bob's your uncle. In reality, that doesn't appear to be happening. But I admit people claim it is happening. All I really know is it's not happening in my country.

Northern European countries have societies with majority of non-religious people, and they are being ranked the top happiest countries every year with low crime rate and also kindest people.
China has only 7% religious people they are still moving towards economic development rapidly and the crime rate is much lower than countries with high number of religious people.

All that is required for a good moral code are two sets of beliefs. First is the belief that all human as and our environment should be treated with full dignity and respect, and we can judge morality by adherence to or the failure to adhere to that principle. Second, is the belief that we are always responsible for our choices and actions, as in all cases we could have chosen otherwise. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I think you are confusing "Trust" with "Cooperation" Like in the reality show Survivor - the contestants will cooperate to a point - but I don't think they develop trust as a moral imperative. We evolved to cooperate as long as it is to our advantage - but just as the current political environment demonstrates even among the devout religious that become political leaders there is a huge lacking in morality?

Unfortunately there are people in this world that would be monstrous individuals unless they have a belief of a superior being that will punish them for eternity for behaving badly, or reward them for behaving well. Not everyone will do the right thing, and act and treat others kindly, unless they have a fear of punishment. Not everyone thinks the same way that you and I do.

I doubt if the prehistoric tribes knew they were doing religion, and I’m not sure if what we call religion had much to do with morality. Wolf packs have morality and as far as I know they are not religious. I think the tribal elders had more to say about what behavior was acceptable than the medicine man.

We moderns have grouped together a collection of artistic expressions and labeled that as religion, but for them it was just life.

I think the large organizations that we call religions do serve to keep some people on course and out of trouble, but not everyone needs that kind of religion. A person who is sophisticated enough to have turned away from organized religion is sophisticated enough to figure out her own moral code.

“We” can not excise anything. Each person can set a good example and extend respect to all people. That means respecting their religious opinions. In that atheists are simply withholding belief and have no so called burden of proof, why would they take it upon themselves to excise parts from religions?

Humans created religion to find answers to the unknown questions... like how did we get here and who created the world, what happens to us when we die, etc. Religions evolved to create rules not only for living daily lives but also rules about how a group should live together as a society and how different societies should coexist, or not.

Over time, humans have answered (or not) many of the questions for which religions evolved. And, over time, moral systems have been, in part, derived from religious structures to form the various types of government.

Today, in many instances, the bad has been excised from today’s religions and moral systems. And, with a few exceptions, humans have found ways to live peacefully. We just choose not to. Human desire for power and control over others has lead to the perversion of religious and moral systems in order to justify doing bad things to others.

It’s not necessary to fix the moral or religious systems. It’s only necessary to fix people.

The primary concern, IMHO, would be the truth of the basis for the system of ethics. Many primitive ethics systems are designed for a tiny clan living in an infinite space. Stealing wives and other livestock is necessary to prevent inbreeding. Today we live in a tiny fragile spacecraft. Women cannot be considered mere livestock. On our vessel they must be fully human. Ignorance is a necessity for the slave class in the clan (not always called slaves but slaves nonetheless) not a real option on the space craft. We need a new basis for morality which reflects the real world, not the figment of some Bronze Age goat herder’s imagination or hallucinations.

You have to remember that religious ethics are simply secular ethics, invented by people just like the purely secular ones, the only thing that religion adds, is a false authority based on the lie that they come from outside of society.

You have therefore to ask if you can get better ethics, when you can be plainly seen to be telling a lie from the start, and if therefore any decline in ethical standards associated withe a decline in religion, if that happens (doubtful) can not be put down to the fact that someone has been caught telling lies and has lost credibility because of that.

Wikipedia is controlled by the Vatican purging current facts as well as truth telling about religious crimes in every historic era.....a fool comes to USA and fails to highlight his own country religious crimes ongoing and from millennia....for example Epstein and TrumpOLINI raped children and have filed lawsuits against both perpetrators yet are censored out of Wikipedia....lawyer Bloom famously filed one case and then dropped it days before the 2016 due to "death threats "

Credited by whom? Isn't it more likely it was much easier to survive by cooperating?