There's nothing banal about the pantheism I explore. And who says philosophy should or could be perfectly objective? I explain elsewhere what objectivity for mammals is. It's not neutrality, but a crafty plan for domesticating the subject matter.

I agree that the evolution of life is profound and mysterious. I just think Kronman's talk of "joy" is misleading and sentimental. We needn't rest a case for pantheism on a single word like "joy" or "horror," but there's a big difference in attitude or existential orientation here.

You're strawmanning my views by calling them adolescent. You're also assuming the mainstream Western standard of maturity, and as I explain elsewhere, that standard is a by-product of consumerism. Who's more mature, the normie who's blissfully ignorant of unsettling philosophical and scientific doubts, or a grim, alienated sage who doesn't succumb to infantilizing distractions? It depends on the anthropologist's standards, and on what we're supposed to be doing in life. I don't beg those questions but reflect on them in my writings.