Revisiting the Intellectual History from modernity to Postmodernity

I opened this thread expecting more.

Try again.

Religion is dying.

Thank God!

Perhaps. but religion is contributing to this monumental shift in politics and traditions etc.. what we have today is because we have them before. "Dying" of religion is because we ignore and yet disengagement to the activity. Modernity is about technology, about science. religion is ignored.

Religion has been the cause of too many disagreements and wars. Humanity suffered from all the religions created by man. Cultures created their own god(s). Which god do you believe in?

Study human evolution based on scientific study. It might give you another perspective of us homo sapiens.

I believe in God above the Cultures you are saying and I am convinced perhaps of human adaptation but not evolution. religions created by man himself is the result of his own diverse self-sustained mind follies. human being appreciates a lot of truth about our own lovely world and we, as homo sapiens bears different wise unchangeable "opinions". we have different religions from cultures because we have different eyes to look upon the "god (s)". human evolution cannot possibly be a mainstream of understanding the social development/dynamism.

what do you believe in?

Is it really possible for us to have this kind of human emancipation from our own traditions,cultures, and beliefs in an ideal way in order for us to have this another attitude in the future? If we may have this kind of transformation especially for goodness [order] sake, How can we determine the pivotal point of change in the world ? I am currently reading the history of Western philosophy in the context of political and cultural thoughts/idealism through Hegel and Marx excluding first religion in the scene.

As if politics has not....
You are generalising things. There are religions and denominations against any form of violance and war and the same with political parties.
If you say humanity suffered from all the religions created by man one can just as well say the same about political parties created by man.

Although with religion, death is never the end

Unless one has reached bhodi and nirvana in which one breaks the cycle of reincarnation, in certain religions.

This event could be a monumental to be thought of as a usual reader would imagine. I think as I could possibly elucidate it in this section would be, revelatory. First, is the conception of what is to be "modern"? 'Modern consciousness' derives its foundation and expression from the two main field of distinctions namely, the modernism and the modernity. modernism which underlies the 'modern consciousness' is what define the modern philosophy. modern philosophy, well as most of the reader understand, is a wellspring of Cartesian prominence and influence. Descartes ushers the thinking being as an autonomous who can dominate nature by its immense rational abilities. this claim was supported by Kant in his publication of the Critique of Pure reason and the two others. Descartes and Kant embraces the power of epistemology wherein reason is the guarantee of modern progress which channels the domain of human emancipation. the single drama is driven or acted by a single rational being of Descartes and reason faculties of Kant. the typology from the ancient conception of nature as the reality is reduced into the idea of positing this rational being on high or "man" is enthroned on the field of all. this is the modern standpoint. in the field of intellectual history, "man" as a rational being enthroned to dominate nature and possesses all the expected ideal progress of modern thinking is the main actor of history's developmental emancipation. history is understood to have a unilinear progression towards an end or goal. this goal in Hegel's account is to attain the pure Spirit. this is it. what is the postmodern then? the bridge from modern to postmodern is the philosophy of Michel Foucault. in this point I would utilize it as an avenue to the field of philosophical system. Foucault has a three stages in his development I thinking, namely, the archaeology, genealogy, and the ethics. the two stages (archaeology and genealogy) are what I wanted to posit here. Foucault disrupted the foundation of Descartes and Kant by ushering the method of the episteme. the epistemological foundation of modern thinking is challenged through the investigations on how knowledge becomes possible and where it gain its legitimacy. Foucault delve deeper in this section to scatter the rational capabilities of the thinking being of Descartes. Foucault utilizes his analysis on the painting of Velasquez Las Meninas to view that the rational being do not have any position, intervention or activity in the order of the world. but rather "man" is only a clarifier of that order. "man" as a rational being is limited and do not know his origin likewise the Das'ein of Heidegger. this conception of Foucault's "man" as an inutile amidst the rational or conceptual ordering ushers the dissolution of man or what he called the "death of man". His combat on modern thinking or the modernism ceases here. in the field of modernity, Foucault utilizes the genealogy to break the progress, primarily industrial and historical, of the modern thinking. genealogy focuses on power relations that dominates the historical field of the modern thinking, it is not necessarily geographical but institutional. Foucault challenges the domain of historical surfaces of the modern by positing systems of what he called the dispositif. this method challenges the order of the structures that channels power subjugations among the social bodies.
the two system of Foucault, the archaeology and the genealogy are the two elements of the postmodern rise. postmodern thinking embraces diversity in styles, and expressions. postmodern adopts numerous philosophies and viewpoints. it is called as 'eclecticism'. this scattered view is indebted with Foucault's two systems of critique of modern thinking. postmodern thinking from its very origin undergone a long incubation from 1960 to 1980 until it was successfully accepted as 'cool'.

Well, sharing ends up here for now.
This section still need a lot of investigation and analysis.

Religion is a construct of politics. It's to control the masses.
Religion is an accident of birth. Most follow the religion of their culture and parents.

That is a fantastic sweeping statement. It is so funny I have to laugh out loud.
We have atheists, we have agnostics and something like 10 000 different religions. And you think it is to control the masses.
Not more or less than all the different political parties in a democracy.
Control of the masses are much more in politics in non democratic countries under dictators. As a rule they are and have always been against religion.

Go laugh your heart out.
https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Religion_in_Political_Theory#Historical_background
http://religionandpolitics.org/rap-sheet/#headlines_12061

You give me a couple of news paper articles to read and something from wikibooks about Calvin. And on that I should be enough to convince me?
Calvin did not influence Sweden - we are Lutherans.
To find out if the Lutheran Church has controlled the masses you have to read a history book about Sweden and then a book about Church history. After that you might get into a couple of books telling you more about the influence of the Lutheran Church in Sweden and maybe even amongst the Swedish emmigrants in USA. The subject is endless
Take the communistic country like UdSSR which got rid of religion and read about it and compare life there and in East Germany to life in West Germany.
One might like Chancellor Merkel´s politic or not, but ¥ou have to agree on that she is a kind and good person.

I did visit Sweden many decades ago, and learned about the Lutherans on that visit, but my memory has been failing me of late. I'm going to go look at a map of Sweden to remind myself of where I visited in your country, and will come back to post it.

Malmo, Stockholm, Uppsala. Probably a few more places, but have forgotten them. I've visited over 80 countries, and my memory is in the pits now.