If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for humans.

The point is about Western society and its progression, not “humans” in general. So yes, one route may to be create a belief system more similar to animist or other religions. But that is itself a tall order.

A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.

All I can suggest is, if you really want to take a scientific approach to all this, you may want to start by finding out what Christianity actually teaches, rather than the garbled third-hand nonsense you've quoted above, which bears no resemblance to anything taught by a mainstream Christian denomination at least since the Council of Nicaea. I'll admit it's not easy to figure out, especially when some churches like to continue arguing with others about some of the details, and also when "just read the Bible" really doesn't help because it's hard to make sense of on its own (sorry, Luther, but sola scriptura never really stood up, otherwise all the preachers would be out of a job). It takes time and patience to really understand what claims Christianity makes on your life and on the world. Welcome to theology, it's not science, but it still requires critical thinking, intelligence and a sensitivity to nuance.