Now that I’ve actually listened to the show, I understand what you were after, revolven. Hoffmann fortunately made (most of) the point you wanted to make: that is, that Dawkins believes that theology is vacuous. There is no god, hence there is no legitimate study of god per se.
But yes, Dawkins also does believe that there is a legitimate study of religion, indeed in precisely the sense that people like Hoffmann study it: as a human phenomenon. (It could be studied by careful historians, sociobiologists, neurologists, anthropologists, etc.) And within that study, you can, of course, also study god as a human phenomenon. But you don’t need theology to do that.
Dennett is much in agreement, I believe.
So, good catch.
(I should add that I do believe there is room for a wholly theoretical study of theology within the context of philosophy: that is, as a “what if” kind of metaphysics. It can, of course, also be studied as part of the history of philosophy; many theological arguments are actually very interesting and worth study).