Introduction

A Messy Process with No Single Cause

In the history of science there is an oft told story about a confrontation between Bishop Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley. Wilberforce asks Huxley whether he believes he is descended from apes through his Grandmother or his Grandfather. To this Huxley replies that he prefers descent from an ape to descent from a man who misuses the gifts of his intellect. This was not a formal debate and both of these remarks were made at the spur of the moment, despite this spurious origin, the exchange found its way into scientific history.
I mention this incident because it’s a good example of how the science of origins continues to be discussed using singular words. Today the singular words are special creation and evolution.
During this 1860 exchange, Huxley narrowed his answer to single out ‘a man who misuses the gifts of his intellect.’ Wilberforce chose, Grandmother, or  Grandfather, not both or the far more pluralistic ancestors. This is significant. Human beings like to find singular causes. This proclivity is very common even amongst scientist and philosophers who have studied the complexities of causation.
For those who have not studied causation let me say, any careful study of causation reveals that except in a very simple colloquial sense, there is no such thing as a single, simple, direct cause. Things that at first appear uncomplicated become intricate when every factor bearing on their cause is brought into the picture.
This book is about how things come to be. It does not shy away from the complexity of causation, but in this preface I’d like to indulge the human penchant for simplicity and say that if anything can be said to be the single, simple, direct cause for the creation of every single thing which ever has been or will be that cause is processes.
Everything is the direct result of processes.
When one thinks about it, this is fairly obvious.
Welcome to Process Creationism, a Theory of Everything.

A General Statement of Faith

I believe a Deity exists and cannot believe otherwise. I do not claim definite knowledge nor do I believe the Deity’s existence can be proven, so I am a believing agnostic.
There is in the nature of things a benevolence without favor. The same sun shines on every living thing and nourishes it without favoritism, so I am optimistic.

I believe people, including myself, are limited rather than sinful. I choose humility and understanding over superiority and judgement, so I am a humanist.

Process Creationism

Special Creation is the natural outgrown of the anthropomorphic conception of god inherent in Ordinary Theism. A humanlike deity creates in a humanlike way, from humanlike motives, and does so in the local, temporal and discrete manner that is natural to humanlike being.
The most objectionable aspect of Special Creation is not when it happened, but that it is said to have happened at one discrete time and place. This conception follows from deity itself being an actor in time and space rather than a timeless imminent being within whose boundless being all other things come to be exist for a time and pass away.
Process Creationism corrects this misconception by beginning its explanation with infinite eternal deity, the one being who transcends the local and temporal boundaries that define all other beings, in whom all things have their being.
We see creation by process all around us. Things come to be, exist for a time and pass away without any apparent beginning or end in sight, but this obvious reality is perhaps too dull to entertain our narrative selves, so we create a story we can be part of. A story with dramatic beginnings, and a climactic end.
The Fundamental Nature of the Universe is not obscure, but our sense of it is disorganized, so I will now try to present it as a comprehensive system.
Twelve specific concepts, under four general headings.
Notice how none of these things require definition. We know what they are even if the thought of them as part of a universal systematic conception of fundamental reality is a bit mysterious.
The existential
Local, temporal and discrete
The procedural
Coming to be, existing for a time, and passing away
The characteristic
Structure, movement and function
The personal
Intellect, emotion and will

Anthropomorphism
the Invincible Dogma

Is a Non-Anthropomorphic Theology Possible?

The strongest dogmas are based in the delusions of human perception and the default assumptions of natural reasoning. This combination of how everyone sees and thinks about a thing is impervious to the proofs of any form of sound reasoning that seeks to overcome it.
The ordinary conception of anthropomorphic deity is a primary example of this.
Theologians and philosophers all agree, God is not a man. Anthropomorphism is seen as a minor issue, addressed piecemeal as anthropomorphisms. References to God having human body parts, such as hands, are dismissed as figurative language, and more substantial anthropomorphisms are expected to be just as easily dismissed.
But can they all be so easily dismissed? Isn’t a deity who thinks human thoughts and experiences human feelings just a man beheld in a divine aspect? Isn’t a deity whose limited intentions can be thwarted just a humanlike character?
These obvious problems aren’t addressed because we all tend to see personality in human terms. So far as perception is concerned alternatives do not seem to exist. The operations of human perception tend to see all personality as humanlike, and any rational correction, when it occurs, is temporary.
We all see things this way and like simple optical illusions, once the proof of the illusion is withdrawn, we revert to the delusion of our perception.
Natural thinking is likewise impervious to refutation.
We assume some form of social relation to deity, and expect to relate to God as we would to any other personal being. We relate to deity in the same general manner as we relate to one another. We guess their thoughts, feelings and intentions by using our own thoughts, feelings and intentions. This along with our social experience of human interactions forms a self-reference. We see others by the light of our own experience, and only a humanlike deity can play a role in our human experience.
To play a role in the human drama of our narrative self, God must think, intend and feel by the same processes that we do. A humanlike conception of deity plays this role with ease. Non-human actors with few exceptions are anthropomorphized, enabling them to play a personal role in the drama.
A non-anthropomorphic theology would need to thwart the natural inclinations of human thought, and could only be the result of highly disciplined reasoning. The conception of non-anthropomorphic deity would then be like the proof that dispels an optical illusion. Once the discipline relaxes, theological thinking reverts to the humanlike conception.
We possess one set of perceptual faculties, and not another. One way of thinking is natural to us and not another. Any factual reality, no matter how great or consequential, which contradicts perception and natural ways of thinking, even if it is discovered, will ever overcome the persistence of delusion. As soon as the proofs are withdrawn the delusion will return.
The ordinary theistic idea that God thinks humanlike thoughts, is angered by frustrated intentions, and can be related to by the same self-referential methods we employ in our relations with one another is natural to our perceptions and thought processes. An argument could be made that the ordinary theistic conception is a product of those very things, and religious instruction merely bolsters intuition by giving it a sectarian character.
Whatever the case, ordinary theistic thinking, based in intuition, enjoys a natural imperviousness to correction.
Correction, whenever it occurs, can be expected to be temporary.
Seeing ordinary theistic conception in this light, I ask, is a non-anthropomorphic theology even possible?
The great mysteries of religion, science and philosophy are not hidden from us, they are hidden by us.

Language Crystallizes Natural Delusions

If we see things one way and not another, and if we think about things one way and not another, we will talk about these things in one way and not another, and this is how the language of delusion amplifies and crystallizes natural error.
Natural error surpasses the limits of mass delusion, where a large group of people are animated by a mistaken set of beliefs.
Mass delusion affects a number of people when they begin seeing things in a delusional way, thinking about them in accord with that delusion, and talking amongst themselves in accord with the delusion. Natural error affects everyone in a manner similar to mass delusion.
Natural error is based in how we all see, think and talk about fundamental reality. Natural error is endemic, it’s part of being human. We are all equipped with the same set of faculties, and where these things go awry, we all go awry.
With great foresight the builders of the Parthenon understood that seen from a distance the straight line of a flat surface appear curved. To correct this they replaced what would have been flat surfaces with expertly calculated curves which would appear straight to the beholder at a distance. They couldn’t correct the perception of the beholders, so they corrected the Parthenon.
This inability to correct errors natural to human perception, reasoning and language is the great dilemma that besets religion, science and philosophy. Marble though hard, can be shaped. Reality is not in any way malleable. It cannot be reworked to correct for natural error.
Reality is one thing and not another. If we see it the wrong way something must correct perception, If we think about it the wrong way something must correct our thinking, and if we talk about it the wrong way then a correct way of talking about it must be devised. Language, the crystallizer and amplifier of error must be reworked to describe reality as it is and not as we naturally see it and think about it,
Only a careful use of language can overcome natural error. Of the three, perception, reasoning and language, only language is amendable to change. Only language can dispel the delusions of perception and thought, but it can only do it for a time. Once the truth revealing measure is withdrawn, the delusions of perception and reasoning soon return.
In my experience they never go away. It’s impossible to frame a perfect non-anthropomorphic theology. Anthropomorphisms creep in from every direction. Statements that seem non-anthropomorphic rely on self-reference for meaning. They represent a move towards reality, not a perfect description of it. This will be discussed more fully when that enormous hurdle must somehow be surmounted.
~~~
Notes 1/16/2026
I have already written a thing where the dearth of monist terms (affect is monist) is noted along with the tendency towards split . FIND THAT
The parts are apparent, simple and practical.
The whole is complicated, seen as two major parts, and separation seems a first practical step.
Gestalt sounds good, but that is in a ‘wisdom of the counter-intuitive’ sense.
Mind/body problem a good example of how this dynamic works.
Despite being embodied personal who are very unfamiliar with out of body experiences conceiving of our non-physical personality as just an aspect of our physical being just isn’t done.
Monism as a reality swims against a current wherein every perception, intuition and language tendency propels duality along.