I did not hear the debate, but it is very interesting to get his take on it in the article. His views accord with mine.
I regard myself as an agnostic - a true "don't knower" when it comes to the big questions. But I have never rejected the poetry and profundity of some religions nor underestimated their worth. However, I share greatnan's abhorrence of their many negative aspects too. We can hardly avoid these.
I think the last two paras of the article sum things up very well.....
"First, religions must give up the aspiration to intervene in secular law in the democratic state."
"But non-believers like me should make a concession as well. We should concede that, when it comes to discussions of ideas, morality and meaning, religion does have a place."
I have always seen Dawkins as a bit of a lightweight - he really has nothing new to say. Philosophers and others have been saying the same things for a very long time, and more thoughtfully and pleasantly.