As somebody who's intimately familiar with the writings of both Hitchens and Dawkins, I'm afraid I can't agree with your observation about their opinions. Both of them have frequently expressed awe and wonder at the enormity and complexity of the universe, including biology, which is just a fascinatingly huge subject.

Both of them understand (understood in Hitchen's case) that many things are far bigger than humans can understand or even might one day be able to understand.

What they have rejected is not that bigger things than humans exist, but that any of those big things are gods with supernatural powers who involve themselves in the affairs of people, even to the point of judging and torturing or rewarding them in a hypothetical afterlife.

Both of them have observed, and quite accurately in my opinion, that god stories lack any evidence or foundation. Both of them insist that we should not
believe things merely because people say or once said they were true.

I just want to set the record straight here, because I believe your characterization of their beliefs is off target.

Not that that's a fatal flaw in your writing. I am very appreciative of the major thrust of this story. Thank you!