Unfortunately I think for regular listeners of that program, that Sean probably didn't come across effectively. I suspect the audience is used to quick to the point answers, and so when Sean is forced to explain in detail where he is coming from, that they would just tune out wondering "Why isn't he answering a simple question with a simple answer that I understand?", which of course is compounded by the hosts cutting him off when he was trying to discuss a topic "That we covered in a previous podcast."

For example, for the repeated question of why Dawkins won't debate Craig, some of these answers might have gone over better:

"Aside from the moral reasons of not wanting to share a stage with him, he is too busy with more important demands on his time." (opening it up for a discussion on the moral reasons)

"Public debates are often a contest of who is the better speaker, not necessarily who has the better arguments, so aren't a useful forum for deciding important issues."

"Why should he? He's debated numerous religious people in the past, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, and finds it is usually a waste of his time."

"Richard wrote an entire online essay on why he wouldn't debate Craig. One answer is that he has no respect for Craig in view of the immoral views on genocide that Craig holds."

"Why should he? Craig always says that he finds Dawkin's philosophical arguments childish and easy to refute, yet he never explains in any detail which ones, and how to refute them. Unless he demonstrates he has some substance behind his statements, then he's asking for respect that he hasn't earned."

"Who?"