Grayling writes disparagingly of the apologists for religion, who like to concentrate on the "pleasant folk who shake hands with each other in an English country church on Sunday mornings - a much dwindled and still dwindling rump of folk, true, but harmless and even admirable for the cakes they bake for the Saturday fete, raising money for developing world children and other good causes".
The complaint is that Grayling fails adequately to document the ways in which people can be motivated for good by religion. "But a serious assessment can't be made in the way Grayling goes about it here, by mockery".
But this is an avowed polemic from Grayling, on CiF, where comments are expected and encouraged (even if they may be censored). It's part of an ongoing debate. There can be very few people following the debate unaware of the arguments in favour of religion as a motivator for good actions, just as there'll be very few people unaware of the argument that some of the 20th century's greatest evils were perpetrated by atheists like Stalin or Mao - another point not covered by Grayling. But why should he? It would be tedious in the extreme if every contributor to a debate were required to list all the points for the other side.
If Grayling had written a book about religion, where some form of comprehensive coverage of a topic might reasonably be expected, then I could understand Norm's criticism, but as directed at a short polemic I have to say it seems like taking the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Update: see here.