This is a response to Tom at Plastic Bodies
" After reading a post at Immanent Transcendence, I would speculate that the theological and naturalist dogs in the SR/OOO fight will inevitably be lead to an impasse over causality. It will come down to whether or not you accept the reality of final, formal, and perhaps material cause in addition to efficient (and, for Harman, vicarious) causality. The theological wing will invoke Aristotle and Peirce to talk about several forms of causality, whereas the naturalist wing sticks to efficient and vicarious (perhaps material, anyone?)."
I would argue that he has not adequately parsed the "sides." He implies that the "theological side" is for final and formal causes, while the supposedly opposed naturalism side is for efficient causality, etc. First, I would not identify affirmation of teleological causality, e.g., Peirce and Dewey, as the "theological side." That sides most if not all emergent naturalisms with theology, even though many are thoroughly secular and card-carrying "Brights" (militant aestheists). Dewey was not sympathetic. Second, the identification of "naturalist/naturalism" with efficient causality is too hasty. That narrows the field to some popular naturalisms, i.e., scientific naturalism, but leaves out emergent naturalisms that embrace teleology. Third, a Peircean/Deweyan teleology is not a strict Aristotelian one--far from it--and thus the implied identity between the two is quite misleading. If one does not realize how different they are, then they probably do not know what I mean by pragmatic "teleological causation," because it's neither Aristotle nor scholasticism. Fourth, the invocation of Spinoza against them is odd, as Dewey and emergent naturalists find a lot of inspiration in Spinoza (Spinozistic thinking, usually through the medium of German Idealism).
To answer your question, Tom, we need not agree to disagree just yet, because we're not on the same page. I am not even sure how my linked post is connected to your comments, which leads me to believe that you interpreted them through Leon of After Nature's post on them … and he toke them a place I was never intending to go. I have little to say about the Theology vs. X debates, although I do think that causality is key.