Since the Industrial Revolution, scientific progress has far outstripped progress in the humanities. We've gotten very good at answering the how, but not the why (or why not).
I guess that depends on your POV: I’m pretty much a reductionist, so I find the various hypotheses re where the universe and life come from to be quite compelling.
There is no why, really.
The more interesting question revolves around should, from an ethical/moral perspective. The analytic tradition so favoured in the UK since Hume has been shown to be cracked (read, e.g., The Women Are Up To Something). Since WWII, progress has been made on that question, but Hume’s acolytes still cling dearly to mind, perhaps because of that same reductionism.
The humanities were discarded for entertainment and marketing, and the criticism of entertainment and marketing, ultimately based on predicting/motivating sales and attempting to explain when those sales predictions turn out to be wrong.
There is no why, really.
The more interesting question revolves around should, from an ethical/moral perspective. The analytic tradition so favoured in the UK since Hume has been shown to be cracked (read, e.g., The Women Are Up To Something). Since WWII, progress has been made on that question, but Hume’s acolytes still cling dearly to mind, perhaps because of that same reductionism.