Noted Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder presents a compelling case that our universe is readily reducible to simply this -- an immaterial wisdom. "The solidity of iron is actually 99.9999999999999 percent startlingly vacuous space made to feel solid by ethereal fields of force having no material reality at all." And what is that tiny portion of an "atom" of matter that we describe as supposedly being "matter", that is, the quarks and electrons? They are incredibly precise (i.e., specified) packets of 'frozen' energy, highly tuned to interact with these highly tuned "ethereal fields." It seems that such objects are essentially intellectual constructs, as are all the "objects" of the so-called particle zoo. We call "something" a quark (or a photon, electron, etc) only because we can assign a certain behavior to "it". But what is "it"? Apart from saying that "it" is specified information, nobody knows. Within the quantum mechanical framework, these "objects" are essentially mathematical objects. As Einstein told us, what we call matter is merely condensed ("frozen") energy. And it turns out that energy is merely information. But what incredibly elegant information it is! (If it were not, neither people nor stars nor any "material" thing could exist). The materialist paradigm of our age is decidedly uneasy with the revelation that "matter" is but an elegant creation of a nonmaterial and extra cosmic entity. Why should we have an "Elegant Universe"? Philosophical pre-commitments seek a "blind" non-thing as an explanation, actually demanding a clumsy series of explanations other than the theist's Creator. (Interestingly, this approach is mislabeled "reductionism" and/or "positivism"!) "Consider the 'coincidences'" of nature's wisdom, asks Schroeder, and explanations other than a wise Creator "must seem a bit forced," even to the atheist.
The only detraction that I will offer is that the author subscribes to a kind of 'process theology'. Overall, this may be a minor problem. Schroeder's central thesis is itself elegant (and modestly eloquent, and yes, obvious to anyone who isn't psychologically pre-committed to rejecting it out of hand).