In Europe, Modernity begins with the Renaissance and it is generally the result of four developments: a) the replacement of human relative values ​​such as freedom, equality, and individualism for “church religion”; b) the emergence and strengthening of the scientific movement and scientific methods; c) the belief in reason and rationality and the socio-cultural effects of technology; d) the belief in “progress” (Ameli, 2017: 10). Some of the results of these principles are:

Humans will be able to solve all current and future problems of humanity and find answers to all current issues or issues that will arise in the future.
According to principle (a), in modernity the world is meaningless; there is a belief that the existing meanings are meanings derived from Abrahamic or natural religions that must be changed. Therefore, “modern man” must create new meanings.

The above principles have led to the identification of two things in terms of validity and credibility: one is modernization and the other is modernity -which is both a subject in the humanities and social sciences, a historical period (the Modern era), and a set of specific sociocultural norms, attitudes, and practices that emerged in the continuation of the Renaissance, in the "Age of Reason" in the 17th century, and then the Enlightenment in the 18th century-. The postmodern era is the continuation of the modern era, and in this article, modernity is considered.
Reflections on modernity and its consequences take these principles into account. A point that has attracted the attention of Western thinkers since the early 20th century is the difference between modernity and modernization. Modern natural sciences are successful because of current technology and prosperity (modernization), but they have also given rise to sociocultural and normative value problems. In this context, Francis Fukuyama, in an article that deals with the feedback on his book The End of History (1992), acknowledges that the end of history is essentially an argument about the endangerment of the normative basis of modern liberal democracy due to the philosophical “crisis of modernity,” -first articulated by Nietzsche and Heidegger and then continued by postmodern thinkers-; not about the empirical conditions of the world (Fukuyama, 1995). He considers the empirical and technological success and normative crisis, as modernity's main insoluble internal contradiction (logical inconsistency) (Ibid.). In consequence, Nietzsche and Heidegger condemned modernity by calling the modern man a “bewildered human” and an “enchanted human of modernity". Therefore, this essay begins by stating the objections of Nietzsche and Heidegger on the normative values of modernity.
Materials & Methods
In this article, we take a fundamental look at the imperfections of modernity. Thus, the critique of modernity is carried out with the foundations and assumptions of “modernity”. In response to the question of this article, we use a philosophical analytical method to extract the objections of modern science and modernity from Western philosophers' words and the impossibility of making philosophical rules from science.
Discussion & Result
As mentioned at the beginning, one of the main beliefs in modernity is that “modernity” can solve all human problems and this task has been assigned to modern human science. Therefore, one of the goals of modern human sciences is to deconstruction and de-territorialize old concepts (ecclesiastical knowledge or, in the new claims, Abrahamic religions and natural religions) and to produce new meanings and territories using rules derived from empirical and natural sciences. Examining the validity of this claim is the main question of this article. It is necessary to say here that these new and modern concepts appear deceptively logical; in some cases, they even have a scientific and empirical explanation; however, in fact, and contrary to expectations of modernity, they have created insoluble problems for modern societies - from abstract and intellectual problems to behavioral and practical issues in the life of modern man - to the point that in an interview, Michel Foucault announces the "death of man" (Foucault, 1966).
It is impossible to make philosophical rules from modern science. Because, modern natural science theories are often incompatible with each other, also, some new theories contradict old theories. In addition to these objections, modern human science theories have an internal inconsistency due to having more ad-hoc principles in there. An important note is that humans and material beings, in general, cannot be omnipotent, thus they cannot solve all human problems, so an immaterial (metaphysical) being is necessary. In the history of modernity, especially in recent decades, the consequence of modernity in modern society shows that modern science in solving some human and natural problems has created numerous newer ones. Therefore, modern science cannot be an emancipation and solver of human issues.
Conclusion
Perhaps this is the question of many readers: "All this is true, what should be done now?" What is available to us now other than modern science for solving current problems? Although this is the subject of new research. However, it is useful to note that: first, some of the current problems are based on the entry of modernity and the application of modern science in our society. Therefore, we are also involved in the issues of modernity to a large extent. The experience of the last few decades regarding economic problems in our country and the world casts doubt using on modern science to solve them. Second, in countries that modernity has realized, there are many unresolved social, cultural, and economic problems, and the “welfare state” has also faced challenges (Fukuyama, 2014:ch34). Therefore, given the fundamental weaknesses and objections of the theories of modern science, they should not be given meaningful authenticity and should be considered as expressions of how “happenings” are, and nothing more. There is also a need for a deep and fundamental look at the “developing and excellence in the human science”; That is, it should not be reduced to “developing in modern human science.” Of course, the discussion for developing in human science is a detailed discussion and a topic for further research.