Yes, I accidentally replied to your comment :) So thank you for answering me nevertheless. I will do, too.

I see the thing as a pendulum movement, where the end of the movement before the pendulum swings back is an extreme.

At the time of the Rennaissance, the natural sciences defied the clergy, who spread throughout Europe and beyond as knowledgeable about the human soul and its well-being, and it seemed to be time that a movement was formed here that we now call the Enlightenment.

Now, it seems, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water here too and the soul, consciousness, has been eliminated from the considerations of the natural sciences. At least one pretends that this is the case.

However, I think that you cannot simply erase two thousand years of Christianity and monotheism and that what is deeply rooted in educated Christians exists very strongly and has continued to work quietly for all the centuries since the Renaissance. It's not that the clergy has been cold-cocked or crippled, the people who thought they knew what was best for humanity before just think the same now, they've just swapped the black priestly frock for the white lab coat.

The conflicts of the last two years makes this very clear. "Contact guilt", for example, is a deeply Christian concept (where it was branded as a "sin" and not out of insight that every human being is fallible). Blaming others for an illness that affects you is typical misunderstood Christianity. The concept of guilt and atonement, of shame and branding of the guilty is also found in the Creed, for example. Or the Lord's Prayer.

Extreme, for example, are atheists who stiffly claim that they do not believe in God, but do not realise that the denial of God is his affirmation. Deeply engraved in our Christian culture is the creation myth that the earth and man were "made". Those who believe in this omnipotence must necessarily assume and presume their own superpotence, that life is controllable, manageable and predictable. You only have to do it "right" and you don't know everything "yet", but you are "close".

Where people see themselves as rational and pure materialists and bring facts and objectivity into the field to ridicule the superstitious or esoteric, they are actually talking about themselves, because they do not know that the belief in total feasibility in the natural sciences is just the same thing, only in a different colour. New wine in old bottles.

My thesis is therefore that the "West" or Occident is far less enlightened than is commonly thought and that the accusation of superstition by those who do not believe in the concept of sin, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, should be referred back to such natural scientists or adherents of natural science who are convinced of the objectivity and infallibility of modern science.