Original Sin - Scripture and Reason

All you've done so far is claim that your inability to discern selfish motives is somehow relevant.

1) The avoidance of the negative consequences for not doing it. If someone 'catches' you not doing this, your reputation is harmed. You are acting out of the self-interest of protection of reputation. And the same 'rule of thumb' applies when nobody is watching too.2) By pushing grocery carts back to the store, you are instantiating the meme 'push carts back' which increases the meme's chance of being replicated by observers (or even those that merely observe the consequences)3) By helping your community, you are keeping the community strong. Since your community (From the gene's point of view) is probably composed of those closely related, this helps (but not much, obviously) the chances of the gene that promotes community helpfulness to replicate.The list is not exhaustive, just showing selfishness operating at the level of the individual, the gene and meme. Obviously the effects are rather trivial, but it's a trivial example.

There is absolutely no need for you to be conscious of this sort of analysis, so the fact that you don't remember consciously doing anything like this is not really the point. Your brain is making all sorts of decisions without making them conscious.

I mean, what aspect of the concept do you want to see testing for?

I can suggest the ones which are present in humans in general.

The only system you have given me for determining this is by self-inspection, but how can you self-inspect the operations of your genes on your own behaviour?

I see no need to do that.

I don't have to provide a complete analysis of jar's idiosyncratic motivations in order to conclude that there may well be selfish influences in jar's decision making process that he's not aware of and has not ruled out before concluding that he knows they don't exist.

Since all I am saying is that jar has not eliminated all the maybes in his claim to knowledge, that is sufficient to make my point.

He has not eliminated known unconscious drivers of behaviour.

jar is making the claim that no genes whatsoever or anything else with 'selfish' motives are in play

he uses his conscious awareness and recollection as his only support for this position.

No, he says that we are created by our genes for the purpose of propagating and protecting our genes.

If you want to explain why my position requires 'showing' you the 'specific genes' I'll be standing by.

I don't know, as I've explained.