Gray writes a very powerful argument and recognises that religion isn’t a belief in a certain set of propositions – well, no more than speaking in any language requires – but a set of symbols with which humans communicate their consciousness in social communities. The meaning of these symbols comes, not only from their use, as Wittgenstein might assert, but also from the very reason to use them at all. This reason is the conscious yet immaterial will, the feeling of purpose. Religion, then, might be said to be the characteristic of doing something for a shared purpose.

Also, Gray is aware that the scientific symbolic language that is useful in predicting things is not necessarily a sufficient set of symbols with which to communicate. Or benign. That said, a belief in God is not necessary, or sufficient or benign either.

I don’t know – perhaps I’m just sticking to an annoyingly wide definition of religion?

As to the use of suicide attacks, they also existed a long time before the Tamil Tigers. Aside from the obvious Kamikaze example, it has long been seen as ’sweet and noble’ to ‘give up one’s life for one’s country’.

Insofar as all soldiers are expected to give up their lives in war, if needs be, the concept of ’suicide murder’ is actually much murkier than Hitchens or Gray admit.

Actually, I haven’t read Hitchens’s book but I disliked The God Delusion. Is God Is Not Great as preachy and irritating?

What I find odd is that he describes religion as having been politically powerful in the 20th century, something I see little evidence for. Socialism, Soviet communism and German & Italian fascism all happened in spite of religious concerns, not because of them. In fact, Nazism was based on a sort of spiritualist natural-law mumbo-jumbo which was the precursor for the ‘Hippie’ movement of San Francisco some years later and was positively anti-religion.