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.

And that's the problem with many theistic arguments. Far too many theists assume that atheists are immoral, and base much of their argument on that.

I have found in my travels that atheists can be just as moral/immoral as theists. And that there has been so much historically-documented immoral behavior committed specifically in the name of a given theism that you can't assume that any theism can be responsible for maintaining morality.

So if morality is dropped out of the argument list, we're back to bit "A" of his equation as the only question. And frankly, if bit "B" is meaningless, bit "A" becomes a no-op which doesn't affect the running of the individual program processes. I suppose that's circular reasoning, but it's no more circular than any of the arguments on the other side of the fence.