That didn't answer my question at all.
Well, it did, but perhaps you didn't like (or didn't detect) how it answered your question.
I understand what you're doing; what I don't understand is why.
That's a question I can help answer, but before that, let me talk about self-fulfilling philosophy a bit. I am referring to philosophies crafted so there is no way to disprove them. The natural, rational reaction to such philosophies is, "How conveeeeenient!" (With deference to Dana Carvey.) And such reactions are 100% appropropriate. If a philosophy cannot be proven or disproven, then there is no standard of reason by which it can be asserted to be externally valid. That isn't to say that people should be prohibited from adopting it as their own personal philosophy -- it can surely be valid internally, and that includes within any groups that collectively choose to adopt it. This is solely a matter of whether it is defensible to impose the ramifications and consequences of a self-fulfilling philosophy onto those who do
not subscribe to it. And again, a self-fullfilling philosophy does not have such validity, and imposition of it onto others is therefore immoral AFAIC.
Pantheism is a self-fulfilling philosophy. It simply equates the totality of reality with God, an asserts this in a manner that cannot be disproven. No one can legitimately deny (and no reasonable person would deny) the existence of that which pantheists assert is God; but by the same token no one can prove that that which pantheists assert is God actually
is God. Indeed, many religious beliefs are self-fulfilling; practically all, if not all theistic religions are. They assert axioms that are not defended because they're taken to be true, without question. They require, therefore, "blind" faith in at least one aspect.
It is important to note that no religion I know of specifically advocates disparaging or despoiling that which pantheists assert is God (the natural world). Combined with the existence of that which pantheists assert is God being undeniable, it puts pantheism in a unique position. While other belief systems might impose more on top, none really directly contradict most (though not necessarily all) of the natural conclusions of pantheistic belief (reverence for nature and the universe; respect and care for people; celebration of the earth's bounty; the value of consciousness, reason, and perception).
So having established that pantheism isn't offensive, I can address your question with regard to "Why?" -- i.e., what benefits stem from adopting pantheistic belief? I'll start off with two biggies:
1) It lifts the spirit of, and inspires, those who embrace it. If you choose not to embrace it, then you can look at it as you would look at an appreciation of fine art (assuming you don't share that penchant).
2) At least here in the US, thinking about your beliefs from a perspective of a language of reverence (i.e., "God" instead of "everything") helps communicate a more accurate understanding to the broader population. The broader population tends to equate such a language of reverence with goodness, and since your intention in belief is to engage in goodness, using the constructs that the broader population better understands in that regard serves accuracy of knowledge.
Does that help clarify "why?"
