The argument here for pantheism is straightforward: "Raw, hard science provides all the evidence we need of nature’s divinity, since every physical explanation, for example, is about a type of supreme creative destruction."

It's not a design argument and I don't say nature's developing progressively, in the Hegelian, rationalist manner, although I leave open the possibility of transhumanism. I'm just saying that nature's obviously the only supremely creative power left, after atheism.

It's not so much a question of automatically worshipping nature, like Spinoza or the Taoists or Stoics, since there's the Orphic, Schopenhauerian or Lovecraftian possibility that nature's creative powers are monstrous (inhuman and amoral). Still, we should reckon with the aesthetic status of nature's self-constructions to guide our counterprojects.

Hegel can't write, so I tend to ignore him.