The Story of Everything 2026 Movie Review

 

The Story of Everything 2026

 

A new documentary argues that science supports the concept of a creator God

 

The Story of Everything is a 2026 documentary addressing the question of whether or not science supports the possible existence of a creator God. Before I get too deep in the weeds of this review, let me say, I loved The Story of Everything. The Story of Everything is a polished, professional, engrossing documentary that any thinking person, including high school students, could enjoy. Please go see it in a theater if you can, and if you can't, grab it up as soon as it appears in other formats. Its run is limited, and in the theater where I saw it, there was only one showing. Otherwise, I would have happily sat through this film three times. I was on the edge of my seat. I want a miniseries continuing the work of the documentary, complete with supplemental materials, including question-and-answer notebooks viewers can fill in to review, test, and reinforce all they've learned.

 

The Story of Everything is not just a series of scientific talking heads, utterly fascinating and authoritative though these talking heads might be. It includes animations so unique, so valuable, and so engrossing I cannot wait to purchase the DVD of this film so that I can watch these animations repeatedly. The inner workings of the cell are depicted in minute detail. All lifeforms are made up of cells; those complicated little factories constitute our physical forms. Thanks to these animations, we can see ourselves as never before.

 

The Story of Everything travels from the microcosm to the macrocosm. The film includes gorgeous footage of life on planet Earth, from tiny hummingbirds to majestic blue whales. The film adjures the viewer to again take up the previously discarded awe of a child, and to be bowled over by the powerful mystery that is life. We are made up of billions of miracles occurring every second. We are part of a larger miracle we can never fully understand but can always be inspired by. This movie gave me chills and it caused me to tear up.

 

I love engrossing discussions of big ideas, and that's what you get in The Story of Everything. I love finishing a film determined to do some research on ideas presented therein. Since watching The Story of Everything, I've been gorging on science podcasts. I've been asking questions I didn't ask before, questions about why the carbon molecule shook Fred Hoyle's worldview, and how the Hubble telescope does or does not support the Big Bang.

 

The Story of Everything is backed by the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute was founded in 1991. That fact is perhaps the only fact that everyone can agree on regarding the Discovery Institute. Opponents of the DI accuse it of being a cabal of demented masterminds determined to transform America into the dystopia depicted in A Handmaid's Tale combined with a dash of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition, lead by a crack team of clerical terrorists including Grigori Rasputin and the albino monk assassin from The Da Vinci Code.

 

For its own part, the Discovery Institute self-identifies, on its webpage, as promoting the idea that science supports the concept of a creator God. They are open about seeing that belief as playing a role in the wider society. People who believe in a creator God, the Institute maintains, are more likely to live their lives in way that promotes personal and societal health and happiness, than those who do not.

 

Research tends to support the belief that the "actively religious" are healthier, happier, more socially engaged, and more charitable than those who are not; see a 2019 Pew study here and research on charitable giving here. Research also suggests that "religious service attendance" "protects against suicide attempts" (see here); whereas "religiously unaffiliated subjects" tend to show "significantly more lifetime suicide attempts." Further, "subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living [and] fewer moral objections to suicide … Religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder" (see here).

 

The Discovery Institute is committed to societal change. The DI webpage states that the DI "promotes thoughtful analysis and effective action on local, regional, national and international issues" as part of dedication to "the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued." They believe in Proverbs 23:7, "As a man thinks within himself, so he is." For example, the DI believes that a renewed commitment to the Judeo-Christian tradition might lower the number of teen suicides. See here. The DI also promotes its own approach to the homelessness crisis. The DI approach emphasizes addressing mental illness and substance abuse. 

 

I don't usually give so many details about the backers of a film before reviewing a film, but I want you to be forewarned. If you do an online search for The Story of Everything, you will encounter posts by capital-A Atheists insisting that the film is cheesy anti-science agitprop. Here's an example of the headwinds The Story of Everything faces. A few days ago, I was in a chat with friends. I mentioned my review.

 

"Chad" – not his real name – has a Berkeley physics PhD. Chad is smart, funny, and interesting. He's also Christophobic. He had never heard of The Story of Everything. Even so, after I mentioned it, Chad immediately began ranting against it, not only without actually seeing it, but without having had any time to learn anything substantial about it. He accused the film of being white supremacist. He's known me for decades and he knows I'm not white supremacist. There is no white supremacy in the film.

 

Chad self-identified as a "real scientist," though his career was in advertising. Chad wrote me off as someone "indoctrinated from early childhood." (I'll address, below, Chad's assertion about my "indoctrination.") Chad insisted that no "real scientists" appear in the film. I mentioned that the speakers in the film have advanced degrees in their fields, and speak directly about their fields, not about disciplines in which they have not achieved success. Some occupy endowed chairs and have significant scholarly publications. This information did not interrupt Chad's rant. He said that "smart" people can be very stupid. He went on and on and I just stopped reading his posts raging against a film he hadn't heard of till I mentioned it to him, a film he had never seen.

 

Other online Christophobic, capital-A Atheists, like Chad, exhibit cultish behavior. See, for example, this Reddit Atheist discussion thread. Atheists reassure each other that refusing to see the film is an act of righteous civil disobedience. They then mock the film that they haven't seen. Atheism does have a dogma, and that dogma demands hostility and fear instead of a courageous willingness to hear what others have to say. Atheists insist on straw man fantasies of anyone who doesn't see the world exactly as they do. One posts, "Here’s why I'm avoiding it—look at the 'cast,' not a scientist among them." This statement is false. Below I'll mention just a few of the scientists who appear onscreen.

 

Is The Story of Everything propaganda for a Judeo-Christian worldview? I watched all eight parts of the 2023 Netflix documentary Life on Our Planet at least five times each. I have watched, so far, all four parts of the Netflix 2026 production The Dinosaurs at least three times each. Both of these Netflix miniseries proselytize heavily for a purely Darwinian worldview. They do not allow the viewer even simple curiosity about whether the hand of any God played any role in the origin of life or its flourishing on planet Earth. Netflix instructs viewers in how to interpret the striking visual imagery in the series. The series depicts "evolution" driving "Life's extraordinary journey to conquer, adapt and survive on Earth."

 

Netflix is marketing a counterfactual narrative. "Life" is an abstraction. "Life" is not a character that has a "journey" of "conquering." Even just in the worldview of Darwinian evolution, there is no teleology. Further, only about 33% of Americans accept the concept of Darwinian evolution strictly through natural processes. Most believe in some form of evolution, but many believe that the process involved divine guidance (see here).

 

Netflix doesn't produce only nature documentaries. It is committed to DEI in casting; see its hit series Bridgerton. Black, Asian, and Muslim (but, significantly, not Jewish) characters are depicted as nobility in an alternate-universe-version of Regency England. Netflix, if anything, has a higher social engineering profile than the Discovery Institute. Netflix donates large sums to the Democratic Party, it lobbies the government, it has deals with the Obamas, and its board includes Obama administration officials.

 

Of course I noticed Netflix's heavy propagandistic hand inside the silken glove of magnificent depictions of volcanos, T-rexes, and mastodons. I sensed Netflix's unspoken disrespect for the majority of Americans who feel wonder and curiosity about creation, and Netflix's alliance with the minority of Americans who luxuriate in a sense of superior certainty and see only affirmation of their own Atheism when confronted by the mysteries of life on Esarth. I can benefit from the information Netflix presents and the series' virtuosic visual recreations of extinct creatures while not swallowing Netflix's rigid Atheism. If only folks like Chad were similarly self-confident, open-minded, non-dogmatic, and curious enough to buy a ticket to The Story of Everything.

 

There's a clip of Carl Sagan in The Story of Everything. Sagan, ever so smug, declares,

 

"Here we are like mites on a plum and the plum is this little planet and it goes around an insignificant local star, the sun. And that star is on the obscure outskirts of an ordinary galaxy, the Milky Way, which contains 400 billion other stars. And this galaxy is just one of something like 100 billion other galaxies that make up the universe … the idea that we are central, that we are the reason there is a universe is pathetic. We have to simply come to grips with the real universe that we really live in and if some of our myth and some of our religion is inconsistent with it, it's time to change the myth and the religion."

 

Richard Dawkins says, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Dawkins also says that "Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." Dawkins says that there is no evil, and then insists that faith is evil. Sagan insists that people of faith are "pathetic," and then insists that his own faith triumph.

 

In these quotes we see that famous Atheist and agnostic scientists are not, contrary to their own press, all about scientifically proven truth, and they are as dogmatic as the aforementioned fictional albino assassin monk. One might ask, which worldview, the one of the Discovery Institute or the one promoted by Sagan, Dawkins, and Netflix, is more conducive to human individual and societal flourishing?

 

Ironically, prominent Atheist and agnostic scientists have, for some audiences, failed in their attempts to impose their orthodoxy. We now see the phenomenon of, as one book title puts it, Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity. One new Christian and former New Atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, denounced atheism as a an "unendurable" "self-destructive" "nihilistic vacuum" that inevitably creates a life without meaning, purpose, or solace.

 

Statistics show that a life of faith often makes people feel and live better. That being the case, and given that he was only a "mite on a plum," one wonders why Sagan attacked Christianity as stridently as he did, and why he insisted "it's time to change the myth and the religion." Also, given that there is "no evil, no good," why did Dawkins similarly attack Christianity? Why not allow people the benefits of a belief system that is better for people? Why did Chad find it necessary to send me at least ten messages denouncing a film I mentioned in passing? Why did a Reddit user feel it necessary to lie to others about the cast of The Story of Everything, as part of a thread-long attempt to prevent other Atheists from even seeing the film? The answer, of course, is because all of these men do follow a dogma.

 

The Story of Everything explores current scientific theories about the origin of the universe, the "fine-tuned" factors that allow our "Goldilocks" universe to exist, the origin of life, and how life operates at the cellular level. It presents the history of ideas around these topics going back to the Scientific Revolution and concluding with up-to-the-minute research. Prominent figures from the recent past, including Georges Lemaitre, Einstein, Fred Hoyle, Allan Sandage, and Watson and Crick appear in still photos and significant anecdotes, as well as rare archival footage and audio recordings. Credentialed scientists and historians of science talk on camera. Meticulously detailed animations and video of the wonders of life on earth seduce the viewer's eye.

 

The talking heads featured in The Story of Everything include Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer is a bestselling author who holds a BS in physics and earth science, and an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science. John Lennox holds MAs in bioethics and mathematics, and a doctor of science degree in mathematics. David Berlinski holds a PhD in philosophy. He was also a postdoc in mathematics and molecular biology. Luke A. Barnes is an astrophysicist with a PhD in astronomy. James M. Tour holds a BS in chemistry, and a PhD in organic chemistry. Brian Keating received his BS in physics at Case Western Reserve, and his MS and PhD in physics at Brown. He is a distinguished professor of physics at UC San Diego. Richard Gunasekera has a BS in biochemistry, an MS in molecular biology, another in chemistry, and a PhD in biochemical genetics. He has taught and worked in the fields of biochemical genetics and nanomedicine. Dr. Robert B. Sheldon is a plasma physicist who has worked for NASA.

 

The above list of speakers featured in The Story of Everything is not exhaustive, nor are the details of each speaker's CV. For just one example, please see the resume of Dr. James M. Tour. Tour has the energy, the publications, the social media presence, and the record of public service that could make a dozen other men proud. Dr. John Lennox is equally awesome. His Oxford University page is here.

 

These men are not just impressive on paper. They are charismatic, articulate, well-groomed, passionate and yet disciplined, highly skilled debaters, public educators and communicators. What they are doing is very demanding, and they make it look easy.

 

Stephen C. Meyer is a machine, and I mean that in the best way possible. I've watched him, via YouTube, in appearance after appearance. His command of facts is first rate. Meyer speaks not just in sentences, but in paragraphs. He can, extemporaneously, develop difficult ideas in a way that is accessible to the layman. In hours of interviews, I've heard him say "um" rarely. In Meyer's lengthy Joe Rogan appearance, Rogan hopped all over the map, asking Meyer questions about material that is plainly not in Meyer's wheelhouse, yet Meyer was not taken aback. He continued responding smoothly and accurately. Not only that, he was willing to acknowledge, when necessary, that he wasn't addressing a topic he is academically qualified to address.

 

Meyer is unflappable in spite of the hideous attacks against him by Atheists. Meyer courageously volunteers for the combat duty of rough and tumble debates. In a three-hour debate, Meyer took on capital-A Atheist Phil Halper, a critic of both Judaism and Christianity. Meyer was masterful and yet humble. Though Halper was Meyer's debate opponent, Halper concluded with a positive assessment of Meyer. Halper said, "I just want to compliment Stephen because I think this is the toughest debate I've ever had … I think he did a great job … he's done his homework … Steven makes very interesting points … some Atheists think, well, we've got the final answers … Steven's right to say, 'No, no, you have to look behind them. What … are the metaphysical assumptions behind them?'"

 

In making the rounds to promote The Story of Everything, Meyer exhibits the energy of a man half his age. Meyer is so good at what he does I have to wonder, in this day and age, if he is not an AI simulation.

 

The film follows closely the arguments laid out in Meyer's 2021 HarperOne bestseller, The Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. God Hypothesis was very well-reviewed, and endorsed by accomplished scientists, including holders of endowed academic chairs in the sciences, Ivy League professors, members of prestigious science societies, and at least one physics Nobel laureate.

 

These endorsers of Meyer's work displayed courage. In 2009, Thomas Nagel, University Professor of Philosophy and Law at NYU, and himself an atheist who disagrees with Meyer's conclusions, published a positive review of a previous Meyer book. Nagel faced intense backlash.

 

The title, The Return of the God Hypothesis, refers to the book's main point. The Scientific Revolution was a product of a West that was influenced by the Judeo-Christian worldview and by Christian institutions. The Catholic Church began founding universities in the Middle Ages. These provided academic training and institutional support. The Judeo-Christian worldview undergirded and advanced science. Great figures of the Scientific Revolution were often Christian and often explicitly characterized their scientific work as a specifically Christian exercise. These figures include Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Boyle, Vesalius, van Leeuwenhoek, and Pascal. Kepler is paraphrased saying that he wanted to think God's thoughts after him. The laws of nature, Kepler said, "are within the grasp of the human mind. God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts." Van Leeuwenhoek is quoted as saying that through scientific study, "We discern most plainly the incomprehensible perfection, the exact order, and the inscrutable providential care with which the most wise Creator and Lord of the Universe had formed the bodies of these animalcules [microscopic life forms]."

 

Scientists began to define themselves as agnostic or atheistic, and in conflict with the Judeo-Christian tradition. This shift, according to Meyer, began in the late nineteenth century. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Men like the American anthropologist Madison Grant, and other supporters of Darwin-inspired worldviews, such as social Darwinism, aggressively attempted not just to sever the Judeo-Christian worldview from science, but to uproot the Judeo-Christian worldview from Western civilization. As scholar Richard Weikart has amply documented in his books, these aggressively Christophobic social Darwinists inspired Nazism's mass murder. Evidence suggests that Atheism facilitates a suicidal attitude in some individuals. In the macrocosm, a rejection of Judeo-Christian morality was an explicit support for genocide.

 

In more recent years, New Atheism arose. New Atheism's heyday dates from roughly from 2001 to about 2015. Some see the New Atheism as a response to the 9-11 terror attacks. In this interpretation, the New Atheists lacked the courage and clarity to denounce jihad, so they took on what they believed to be a softer target, the Judeo-Christian tradition. They were simple-minded enough to think that an attack on Christianity would somehow weaken Islam.

 

Author and podcaster Justin Brierley argues that, in 2026, the New Atheism is a spent force. The New Atheists, according to Brierley, sank their own boat through their alienating public bullying, their inability to provide any helpful guidelines to living a satisfying life, and through infighting – apparently they were as obnoxious to each other as they were to everyone else. As has often been pointed out, capital-A Atheism cannot, logically, support or enforce a coherent moral code. New Atheists sabotaged themselves through sexual impropriety and harassment of women. See, for example, accusations against prominent atheists Lawrence M. Krauss, David Silverman, and Michael Shermer. Also see Elevatorgate of 2011-12, as well as the reaction to news that Clementine Ford would headline an Atheist convention. The harassment of women that typified both events was violent, vile, and horrific.

 

What, then, according to Meyer's book, has turned the tide in recent years and allowed for a "return to the God hypothesis"? And what is the God hypothesis, anyway? The God hypothesis in question is the belief that the universe, in disciplines as diverse as astronomy, chemistry, and biology, provides ample evidence to conclude that it is the product of a designer. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle, previously, had been a vocal Atheist. Reflecting his beyond-chance discoveries about carbon, Hoyle famously wrote in 1981, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

 

Advances in the sciences in fields including cosmology, physics, and biology don't just weaken previously held Atheistic arguments. These advances seem to point so clearly to a creator God that they have been, in some cases, actively resisted by scientists who want the world to be God-free. An example of this resistance is the resistance, including by Einstein, to Belgian priest Father Georges Lemaitre's Big Bang theory. This theory argues for the universe having a beginning, rather than existing eternally. A universe that has a beginning must have an extra-universal force that engineered that beginning. Time, space, gravity, and matter could not invent themselves before they had begun to exist.

 

I did not like a couple features of The Story of Everything. One of the talking heads in the film is Peter Thiel. Thiel is a politically active tech billionaire, and one of the one hundred richest people in the world. He is not a scientist, and his brief appearance did not contribute to the discussion of ideas in the film. He is a highly controversial figure, and many may resist seeing the film exactly because he is in it.

 

Each talking head in the film is shown seated in a set. The sets vary by speaker, but they follow the same pattern. The dominant color of all the upholstery, carpeting, curtains, and wood is beige. The décor is from the mid-twentieth-century. There are even retro telephones on desks, phones that, of course, no one uses. Archival footage is displayed as on retro TV sets, and audio recordings appear to issue forth from reel-to-reel technology. This set design choice is visible in the trailer for the film.

 

I was stumped by why the producers made this choice. It was only by chance that I heard, in an interview with Meyer, his explanation for the choice. He said that many of the scientific work discussed in the film occurred in the mid-twentieth century. DNA was described in 1953; the Miller-Urey experiment research was published that same year. The Big Bang achieved wide acceptance in the 1960s. Had I not heard that interview with Meyer, I never would have made the connection between the color beige, retro telephones, and science.

 

Unless I missed it, and I may have, given that I was able to see the film only once, only one woman, astrophysicist and Christian apologist author Sarah Salviander was the only woman mentioned in the film.

 

The Story of Everything discusses DNA and Watson and Crick extensively. Nowadays, many people are choosing to say, rather, "Watson and Crick," "Watson, Crick, and Franklin." See Howard Markel's 2021 book, The Secret of Life: Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, Francis Crick, and the Discovery of DNA's Double Helix. Markel argues that Rosalind Franklin was essential to Watson and Crick's work, and that she deserved recognition equal to that of their Nobel Prize.

 

Another woman who might have been mentioned, as her work, as well, was pertinent to the main idea of the film, was physicist Jocelyn Bell Burnell. Her work also resulted in a Nobel Prize, one she did not receive; it was awarded, rather, to men. Emmy Noether and Margaret Burbidge both did work that could reasonably be cited in discussion of the fine-tuning argument (though they did not work on that concept). Both are examples of the Matilda Effect, whereby women's contributions in STEM are under recognized. Meyer frequently mentions Johannes Kepler. Google turns up no incidences of Meyer mentioned Maria Cunitz, who corrected Kepler's work and whose corrections helped to make Kepler's work more accessible.

 

I know my mention of the absence of women will irritate some readers. I'm not here to cancel anyone. I'm doing what I always do as a movie reviewer: reporting my own reaction to a film.

 

The Story of Everything leaves out a big something: suffering. The bewitchingly complex and magnificent natural world celebrated in the film is full of horrors. Those horrors sometimes destroy faith. Darwin wrote, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars." While watching the film, I thought of diseases I encountered when working in Africa, for example river blindness and schistosomiasis. These parasitic illness are very complex, too, and brutally destructive. The Story of Everything is jam-packed enough; it can't take on, fully, the question of suffering. I wish that problem had at least been mentioned.

 

Finally, a word about Chad's insistence that nothing I say about this film is reliable because I have been "indoctrinated from early childhood." I did not enjoy this movie because it affirms my faith. This movie, in fact, does not affirm my faith. I was fascinated  by the film's discussion of science, but I know that science can turn on a dime. If someone redid the Miller-Urey experiment and got some rocks to spring to life, that would not change my faith. One of my favorite jokes goes something like this. Scientists, giddy and proud, demonstrate to God that they have finally gotten dust to take on life. God smiles indulgently, congratulates the scientists, and then says, "Well done. Now, go get your own dust."

 

Meyer often quotes Psalm 19.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God;

 

the firmament proclaims the works of his hands.

 

Day unto day pours forth speech;

 

night unto night whispers knowledge."

 

That's a beautiful passage, but I've never sought nor found God in the sky. I'm more of a 1 Kings 19:11-13 believer. This passage says that God is not found in the wind, in the earthquake, or in the fire. God is found in a "still, small voice." Evangelical Protestants tend to emphasize "sola scriptura," that is, "scripture alone." Catholics like me also emphasize tradition and community. My faith is less about the sky and more about biographies of the saints who came before me, including Teresa of Avila, Julia Rodzinska, Maximilian Kolbe, and Bernadette Soubirous. In terms of academic study, my readings in world myth and culture let me know that there is no other text, no matter how sublime, to compare to the Bible and its truths.

 

I grew up in a household that was comfortable with both our Catholicism and with science. My brother purloined my pop beads to make models of atoms. I stole his binoculars to become a fanatical birdwatcher. We all loved nature, animals, and plants, participating in the natural world in various ways. My mother was a gardener. A peasant immigrant, she ensured that her kids got the education that was inaccessible to her. She filled our house with books in every room, many of them devoted to science. My sister followed advances in science and medicine, and we discussed these advances whenever we spent time together. Three of my siblings received advanced degrees in science-related fields. In short, the stereotype of Christians as seething illiterates who burn scientists at the stake is false. Capital-A Atheists disseminate these straw men to justify their own irrational hatred.

 

I learned about the Miller-Urey experiment and Darwinian evolution in Catholic school. I memorized this material in order to get my A on the next quiz. Neither the Miller-Urey experiment nor Darwin interfered with my faith, any more than memorizing the conjugation of French verbs. If God wanted to use evolution to achieve his ends, that's none of my business. God is transcendent, beyond my ability to comprehend. As Saint Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly" but someday, when we finally encounter God, we will see as "face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

 

Exactly because I spend every minute that I can in nature and in study of nature, I've never been able to believe that life emerged, or that evolution takes place, purely by chance, with God playing no role. Evolution might be a very fancy car, but even the fanciest car needs an engineer, a mechanic, and a driver. I talked about the complexity I find in nature and my belief in an intelligence behind that complexity in my book God through Binoculars. Starting on page 197 of that book, I talk about the life cycle of the pawpaw, North America's largest edible native fruit. I'm not a famous or influential writer and God through Binoculars sold very few copies. Even so, a capital-A Atheist sent me emails dripping with arm-waving outrage and over-the-top venom. This sad person, a potential book reviewer, accused me of being comparable to the burners of witches. I received similar hate mail from potential publishers. Atheist rage in response to my humble reflections on the life cycle of the pawpaw is both irrational and scary.

 

I don't assess these capital-A Atheists as mere eccentrics. I also can't respond to them, as the gracious Meyer does, as honorable opponents arguing in good faith. I don't see them as merely mistaken gentlemen who, if presented with the right arguments, would consider altering their point of view. Small-a atheists don't bother me. Capital-A Atheists are, to my mind, on the same team as the mass murderers of and torturers and oppressors in my ancestral homelands of Poland and Slovakia. Both Nazism and Communism mass murdered and otherwise oppressed millions. I met some of their victims, including a priest who was a victim of terrible Soviet-era torture, during my visits to Eastern Europe. It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to hate so deeply that you are willing to kill. The online Atheists I quote above may not have ever killed anyone, but they are happy to do the propaganda work for those who do.

 

Danusha V. Goska is the author of God through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery