Well, I've written many articles that address those big questions, and I aim for them all to hang together so it's not easy to summarize. You can get a quick sense of where I'm coming from by perusing the titles (link below).
I'm pessimistic about utopian projects and applying ideals to the masses. This is where I differ from scientistic new atheists and liberal secular humanists. The upshot of most philosophical traditions and of the world's major religions, as far as I can tell, is roughly what Leo Strauss said about how the truth is harsh and is therefore fit for an intellectual elite minority that has to hide that truth to avoid undermining society and to test the initiate's readiness. The masses' antics become fodder for the comedy that sustains the spirits of the beleaguered minority who alone confront our existential predicament without delusions.
Clearly, modernity is defined by scientific, philosophical, and technological progress, but the Anthropocene is just as clearly not a purely wise development. Our progress may be self-destructive because most of us aren't enlightened or awakened to the dark truths of philosophy.
I trust you believe that faith in the power of Jesus's sacrifice is the only way forward. The kind of faith you'd have in mind I'd interpret as a Catholicized/Romanized (imperial) obfuscation of the Gnostic core of the Christian message. That core is consistent, rather, with the Straussian pessimism I just laid out.