Interesting piece. I especially enjoyed Shermer's observation that "whether there is a God or not, the universe per se cannot have a purpose in any anthropomorphic sense." As a theist, I've always found the arguments of purpose and "first cause" to be self-defeating, seeing as they merely smuggle mystery and conceal the inscrutability of the infinite behind safe words which belie comprehensibility.

Unfortunately, what follows in his article relies heavily on assumption that the reader shares his viewpoint, and does little to persuade anyone outside of it. "The universe is simply ..." is just generally a bad way to start a sentence. The most glaring example of circularity comes close to the end: "Shouldn’t we love our families, be nice to other people, and support our communities because those things are good in and of themselves? Of course!" Consider the logic at work here: we should do these things because they are inherently good. Why are they inherently good? Because they just are!

Maybe it's supposed to be an implicit argument for the ethics of pragmatism (and if so, I can understand why -- such arguments make really wide targets when made explicitly), but as stated, it boils down to an appeal that we share his personal, intuitive conclusions. This same appeal, interestingly enough, is the same one found at the bottom of most unconvincing arguments for theism.

I couldn't read this article without thinking of this Robert Frost poem which is the soundest, pithiest (and most playful) treatment of these issues I've run across to date: http://www.daylight.com/~dave/poems/accidentally.html

"It must have had the purpose from the first To produce purpose as the fitter bred: We were just purpose coming to a head."

Thanks for the stimulating read.