There are any number of ways to do this. Any world in which Western culture did not exist, or was replaced by another culture with different values would do it by definition. Likewise, a world dominated by, say, an industrialized China would likely never have seen these values.
However, I am reading from your post that you want a world where as much as possible stays the same, so as to understand the impact of these ideas in OTL. That is, the latest or minimum plausible POD and TL.
I think the real key, here, is to eliminate the enlightenment entirely, without eliminating the Scientific Revolution. This is easier than it sounds. Much of Enlightenment thought grew from two main sources: the Newtonian worldview, and the secularization that followed the Thirty Years' War. In effect, science undermined much religious thought, while the Thirty Years' War discredited it. The philosophes attempted to create alternative sources of values than the Christian tradition, and the results they came up with happened to emphasize equality and freedom.
Now, had the individuals that influenced the Enlightenment been different, they might have emphasized Hobbesian absolutism or some form of aristocratic ideal. The trouble with such alternate ideologies is that they will have effects of their own, separate from the absence of Enlightenment ideals. So, we need effectively a way to keep Western thought in the 17th century.
Well, suppose Gustavus Adolphus lives, and ends the Thirty Years' War before 1640. Not all that likely, actually. While Gustavus might easily have lived, with a higher probability than his death in OTL, even he probably couldn't have ended the War at a stroke. But, say, he gets lucky and does so. The Protestant Princes get a Protestant League, taking up the northern half of Germany, under Swedish suzereignty, but still within the Holy Roman Empire. Germany is spared the worst of the War's devestation. Religion is less discredited, and the Swedish succession is changed, which means that Queen Christina is not there to bail Ninon de Lanclos out of the convent, and also that the Church enjoys more prestige and is able to bring the Enlightenment's predcessors in late 17th century Paris to heel.
Positing a Royalist victory in the English Civil War, perhaps due to Swedish or French gold, which isn't being spent in Germany, thus keeping a single POD, will also have a big effect, preventing the rise of Parliament, and the type of settlement represented by the Glorious Revolution. A useful knock off effect is that this will make the career of John Locke unrecognizable, and so perhaps prevent his philosophical influence.
And so, European thought stays locked in the mode of the Great Chain of Being and the Divine Right of Kings, even while science will continue to advance.
There will still be big wars in 18th century Europe, of course. Louis XIV, or someone much like him, will still inherit the work of Louis XIII and Richeleu in building up the French monarchy. With a pro-French Sweden likely replacing Prussia, and England weaker, and perhaps also pro-French under the Stuarts, the French drive for Continental hegemony might well succeed. A Europe sewed up tight by the Bourbons will be even less friendly an environment for Enlightenment Liberalism.
There will still be gradual economic changes, a sort of rise of the middle classes, and changes in places like America, but they will be expressed differently than in OTL. Rising merchants will be more likely to try to buy their way into the nobility than to promote ideas of equality. Gradually, both the middle classes and nobility will be integrated into the model of a centralized, monarchical state.
Britain's American colonies will still grow rapidly, probably more rapidly as they fill up with defeated Puritans. Americans will gradually develop a separate sense of nationhood, but one without Enlightenment ideals, and perhaps based on Purtitanism or Noncomformist Protestantism. The French will keep their American possessions. At first, the French threat will keep the colonists loyal to England, but in the late 18th century, as the British colonies grow more powerful, and the weakness of New France becomes apparent, the British refusal to conquer New France may well become a source of friction. One could see a situation, say, around 1780 or so, where Britain wins a war in America but loses badly on the Continent, and ends up giving France's American possessions back after nearly or completely conquering them. If this went hand in hand with efforts by the Crown to centralize the administration, one could see a type of American Revolution. This will be, however, essentially a rematch of the English Civil War, in which the Puritans get their own nation across the Atlantic. This "Protestant Republic" may well then be free to conquer French colonies, especially given that France herself never set much store in them.
By the early 19th century, we would probably see a French financial crisis similar to the one of OTL, but insead of an Estates General, we would more likely see someone like Turgot given the authority to do his job properly. This would effectively complete the victory of the monarchy over the aristocracy and commons alike. The 19th century thus sees a "pax Francia" as a France with European hegemony extends its Empire over much of the undeveloped world. In a world with fewer incentives for entrepreneurship, more class barriers, more centralization, and more government control, the industrial revolution will come more slowly or not at all. Personally, I think "not at all" is very unlikely, assuming even slightly familiar institutions. More realistically, it could be delayed anything from 50 to 150 years.
If we split the difference, we have a 2004 world at an early 20th century level, pre-WWI. France still has an eroding Continental hegemony, with Sweden, Austria, Russia, Great Britain, and probably Puritan America as rivals or allies. Without the Enlightenment, I think it likely that we will not also see the development of either Romanticism or genuine Nationalism. As a result, the European empires are less challenged both at home and abroad. Christianity is also stronger, combining state support in most areas with a good deal more real belief than in OTL. People tend to see their loyalty to their country as a matter of loyalty to monarch and church, rather than to an abstract nation or an ethnic identity. Opposition tends to still take the form of competing sects, traditionalist movements in non-Western colonies, and dynastic pretenders almost everywhere.
All major countries have active secret police networks, that find it rather easier to hunt the kinds of dissidents this world brings than they would the kinds of movements found in OTL. While there is nothing like OTL totalitarianism, neither is there anything like democracy or freedom. Vitrually every country in the world is rigidly authoritarian. Class systems also tend to be very rigid. The poor are poorer, the rich richer than at the same technological level in OTL. This does not produce the kind of revolutionary ferment found in our own backward monarchies (eg. Czarist Russia, Qing China), but instead generates a great deal of pessimism regarding this world, and focus on the next, as, indeed, had been part of peasant and also urban tradition for many centuries in pre-industrial Europe.
