>impossible

I agree with you. Even the deductive logic that is used to describe biological phenomena can't be described in biological terms to begin with. So why should consciousness?

Denying that Qualia exists would also mean, that there is no practical reasoning in checking if a programmed machine is doing something because of its programming or because it makes a conscious decision.

To me the claim that idealism is a fallacy in itself sounds like a reductionist view of the human experience and an outdated epistemological error that leads to a cartesian determinism of what it means and feels like to be a human and have a consciousness. Its reducing the whole question down to a primitive utilitarian sense of: If we can't do good predictions of it, therefore we categorically shouldn't bother.

This idea of a "pursuit of happiness" to begin with seems problematic to me?

A pursuit for meaning would be the ethical choice I would rather want to decide on. If it creates unhappiness than okay, contemplation can lead to necessary suffering.

Acknowledging happiness as a byproduct has been a liberating experience and made me contempt in realizing that it is okay to not be happy all the time. If my "pursuit of happiness" would mean I'd have to choose ignorance to preserve the mentioned cocoon than I'd rather want to face a painful truth than a comfortable lie.

Does that notion make sense to you?

I'd say christianity doesn't need to be true. The whole point of having faith gets negated by the search for absolute certainty.

Try Kierkegaard and his idea of a "leap of faith".

Not christian myself but applying principles to your life and act "as if" there is a god, then your days until death will be more likely to be like heaven than hell.

I wouldn't oversimplify by just living by principles. Look at the core values of christianity and compare them to something like humanism and you will find common denominators. Some examples: unconditional love, solidarity, generosity, justice and equality, tolerance etc.

Now you could argue: wait actual christians aren't [insert life-affirming value] at all! That is because core principles and values don't seem to be internalized and applied that much, instead the focus lies on finding out if the scripture is true in a scholastic and calculated sense. Roger Bacon criticised this.

In pragmatic terms the bible doesn't need to be true for it work.