My problem with all theological arguments is that the believers often fall back on this as an axiom, as he does:

Because if it turns out to be a 0, then we really are the slaves of our selfish genes, and there's no basis for morality other than various forms of tribalism.

Having read, and re-read what Larry wrote there, I don't think he's falling back on that as being axiomatic. Looking at the statement in the greater context (the paragraph above), I think he was pointing out that a-religious (i.e. agnostic) people are unwilling to examine their faith because the possibility that morality may not be derived from some god is unpalatable, yet if there is a god, then they think they have to accept all the crap that comes along with "religion" -- crap which is just as unpalatable.

B doesn't have anything to do with morality -- it has to do with God taking care of those who search Him out. Thus, when you say "drop morality from the argument", that doesn't just leave A -- it leaves A and B, since B isn't about morality to start with. If A is 0, then B is meaningless. If A is 1, then B can be either 1 or 0. B is meaningless only in the absence of A.

Anyway, his point wasn't to argue about whether God exists, but to a) get an admission that the idea of God is conceivable, and that b) his concept of God is of one who desires creativity.

Just a thought...