Theodoric, forgive me for taking so long to reply, but I had to reread portions of Davie's book, since I was suprised by his statments you cited. He made these statements in 2007, the book was published in 2006.
His position has changed since the book, maybe because of pressure from the majority of scienctists.
If you will read his Afterword: Ultilmate Explanation of the Question of Existence pp.261-269, you will understand my suprise.
Summarizing the main positions of the book he explained and commented on each position.
A. The Absurd Universe.
The Universe is mysterious and just happened to permit life. There is no purpose to it.
There is no God, no designer, no teleological principle.
This position he says is probably held by the majority of scientists.
B. the Unique Universe.
A unified theory of everything. It is mostly unchangeable. If there is a God this God has nothing to do with the theory or universe.
C. The Multiverse.
A theory of multiple cosmic entities and our universe one of many just happened to be just right for life.
D. Intelligent Design.
Monotheistic religious view that God created & designed universe to be suitable for life.
E. The life Principle.
The unverse arose from laws or principles that constrained it to evolve toward life and mind. It is Teleological in nature. He says this theory is regarded by atheistic scientists as really asserting the guiding hand of God.
F. The sefl explaining Universe.
The universe explains itself, is self contained and creates itself.
G. The fake universe.
We are living in a simulation, and what we take to be the real world is a virtual reality show.
PP267-268
'My own inclinations, it will be clear, lie in the directions of E and F, although there are many details to be worked out. I do take life, mind, and purpose seriously, and I concede that the universe at least appears to be designed with a high level of ingenuity. I cannot accept these features as a package of marvels that just happen to be, that exist reasonlessly. It seems to me that there is a genuine scheme of things--the universe is "about" somethng. But I am equally uneasy about dumping the whole set of problems in the lap of an arbitrary god or abandoning all further thought and declaring existence ultimately to be a mystery."
Although he "inclines" to nature, he sounds very much like Schoroeder, and I believe supports most of Schroeder's postions.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.