Interesting article in NewScientist this last week. "Born Believers: How Your Brain Creates God." It discusses several God theories gathering traction among scientists -- personally, I don't believe they're incompatible. And certainly doesn't envoke the supernatural. And maybe they're not incompatible with your Psalm, just another way of putting it.
I won't bother summarizing the article, but it's probably good reading for most atheists.

Waialeale Mike

I agree that the use of the word "machine" has some undesirable connotations. Unfortunately, I don't think English has a word that better captures the meaning I wanted to convey. (This may go to underline my point: we invent gods because we attribute intentionality to the natural world; lacking any other frame of reference, we conceive of natural phenomena in the same way we conceive of our fellow human beings, as agents possessing desires and wants.) Terms like "emergent structure" or "predictable system" are more technically accurate, but too awkward for the kind of everyday storytelling I was aiming for.

Still, I think even conceiving of the cosmos as a machine is an improvement. The one useful thing about the allegory is that we understand machines themselves don't have desires - there's nobody "in there", but just a series of unintelligent parts which work in unison. Even if it leaves a gap for unfalsifiable intelligent first causes to slip through, it's still superior to the supernatural view which conceives of every aspect of the universe as governed by inscrutable, anthropomorphic agents. The world as a machine, imperfect as it is, nevertheless is a step up over the demon-haunted world.

To me, this phrase seems to spring out of nowhere: "... we should turn our attention to bringing goodness into this world..." and I would prefer something more on the lines of "we should turn our attention to further improving our understanding of the world, including each other, ...".

I agree with some of the comments above concerning referring to the universe and its contents as "machines," but I don't see an easy way out of it, at least linguistically. You could say that the world and everything in it are natural outgrowths of the rules that govern the universe, but this is all personifying language. Just as a machine implies a creator in peoples' minds, rules imply rulers, governance implies governors, etc. The problem seems to be more implicit in language than I'd realized before.

Don't forget the talking snakes and prophets darting around on flying horses.

Keep at it. With enough work and a little luck, the truth will out.

I'm not so sure that referring to the universe as a machine or our cells/bodies as such is a good idea.

Yes I have my doubts about this too; a watch implies a watchmaker to the literal mind. emergent structure might be a possibility, if a little prosaic. This I think is at the heart of the problem for an Atheist story. The religious narrative is simple and simplistic, the scientific one can be complex and crafting "Just So" tales run the risk of alienating the science literate and misguiding the rest. The endeavor is definately worthwhile though.

When do we get more details on your book?

BTW, I'd love to review the chapter on morality if you'd like some thoughtful criticism.

Keep up the good work, Ebonmuse.