In other writings I defend a pragmatic, neo-Kantian theory of truth, so I'm not arguing against pragmatism here. I just pointed to the implications of pragmatism which are bad for traditional Christianity. That's the deviousness in question. Lennox wants to sell Christianity on pragmatic grounds, but he'll pull out absolute certainty about the theoretical aspects of the creed when it suits him. He did that with the Incarnation doctrine in that interview.

And he doesn't say Christianity's merely useful. He says it's true because it works. Scientists are tentative about their findings because they're up-front about the pragmatic nature of the enterprise. By contrast, Christians like Lennox aren't humble and tentative about it; on the contrary, they're selling their religion to anyone who will listen.

Lennox resorts to pragmatism because he wants to be like Paul: all things to all people. He adopts pragmatism because he thinks that appeal to science will work on a certain secular crowd. And he's after that Templeton Foundation money.