If religion is defined as a set of supernatural beliefs, which are untestable and therefore a matter of faith, then religion is a bad thing. That's not to say that religious people do not do good works, they do, but that the central supernatural beliefs of religion are a matter of self deception (being untestable dogma) and therefore a source of division and conflict between people and societies.
The whole point of the talk is that defining religion as requiring a set of supernatural beliefs is too narrow. It fails to capture plenty of... well... religions that don´t fall within that definition. I say religion because it´s hard to come up with a better word for what non-supernaturalist religious practicioners are doing.
To take the example of the talk. Ghanian religion, ie Akan religion, has a creator god called Nyame. Nyame is omnipotent and omniscient. So it´s easy for a westerner, or somebody with a monotheistic mindset to draw a straight analogy between Nyame and the Christian God. But nobody worships Nyame. Nyame doesn´t listen to prayers. Nyame is just an embodiment of the forces of nature. Just like nature itself, Nyame doesn´t give a shit about anything or anybody. So this is a radically different type of religion. In fact, it´s a form of animism and ancestor worship. Ghanians pray to their ancestors. Not Nyame at all. Akan religion has plenty of room to interpret it supernaturally. As does almost all religion. But the step from theistic Akan religion to atheistic Akan religion is tiny. And all practices are left intact, as well as their function. If Nyame is equated with nature it is perfectly compatible with science. Ancestor worship does not necessarily imply that we think our ancestors are still invisibly floating about doing shit. Everybody has rituals to commemorate the dead, religious or otherwise. Whether or not we chose to call that ancestor worship is a technicality.
He also talks about Judaism. Another religion with long atheistic traditions. He mentions Hinduisms, over a thousand years old, traditions of atheism. Socrates was famously an atheist. But he also (according to Plato) took part in pagan religious festivals. So belief in the supernatural is obviously not required for religion. So that begs the question, how should we define religion? We can define it by function... what it´s for?