Health and Religion

[BADecker]

Truth is not a popularity vote.

It does not matter how many people are for it or against it.  

Hey we agree on something for once. I am with you on this one something is true or false moral or immoral inherently and objectivity and it really does not matter if it is a majority or a minority that is able see to understand that truth.

However, I am surprised to see this line argument from you. It was not that long ago when you said this.

morality is relative and is not absolute.

So are you a believer now in objective truth and objective morality?

...
Nature is teeming with life.  We grow life in factories just to kill it at a tender age.  We grow life only to cut it just when the seeds mature. We spray chemicals with no end to kill animals and ourselves.

People who scream they are "pro-life" have no problem ordering a steak or veal, eat eggs and whole animals or use services of the in-vitro clinic. It is really comical.
...
And the same parrots have no problem going to war and kill children, as long as they are not from their tribe.
...
Crimes against humanity? LOL.  What about human crimes against nature?  They are not important in your book, I guess.
Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague.

Sounds like you have figured out that mandkind is fallen. We indeed commit many crimes against nature which we have stewardship over. However, we will never be able to stop these crimes unless we first stop committing crimes against ourselves.

Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.

Revelations 12:12
woe to the earth and the sea...

... 'cause the Devil has gone down to you.     

[af_newbie]

Truth is not a popularity vote.

It does not matter how many people are for it or against it.  

Hey we agree on something for once. I am with you on this one something is true or false moral or immoral inherently and objectivity and it really does not matter if it is a majority or a minority that is able see to understand that truth.

However, I am surprised to see this line argument from you. It was not that long ago when you said this.

morality is relative and is not absolute.

So are you a believer now in objective truth and objective morality?

The scientific method is objective.  This is the best epistemic tool we have to discover what is true and what is false.
Subjective opinions of minority or majority are just that, subjective, and can be dismissed if they cannot be validated objectively.

Morality is temporal and is cultural.  We have plenty of evidence to support this fact.
We strive to improve our morality to cause the least harm. 

Morality aside, I am not sure we'll ever move up on the Kardashev scale.  Unless we drop the ancient myths and embrace science and technology.  You are an MD and you are against stem cell research, a case in point.  Imagine what all other less educated simpletons think
of science. The majority of people do not even understand basic concepts (BADecker etc.).  Look at the Flat Earth 'syndrome'. The Internet is a two-edge sword I guess.

Another problem I see is rampant nationalism, political tribalism, and remnants of ancient myths that will slow us down in the best case, or completely wipe out human species in the worst case.

The biggest issue is our exponential human population growth, but nobody wants to talk about that. 
We may just outbreed ourselves into another population bottleneck.

[BADecker]

Where's af_newbie?

Oh, his mom aborted him.

[CoinCube]

The scientific method is objective.  This is the best epistemic tool we have to discover what is true and what is false.
...  
Morality aside, I am not sure we'll ever move up on the Kardashev scale. Unless we drop the ancient myths and embrace science and technology.  You are an MD and you are against stem cell research, a case in point.  Imagine what all other less educated simpletons think
of science.

For the record I am not opposed to stem cell research in general. I am opposed to human embryonic stem cell research for reasons we have discussed ad infinitum.

The scientific method can only tell you what you can do. It will never tell you what you should do. You want to advance civilization on the Kardashev scale. Ok why do you want to do that?  This is your judgement of our species.

Me, me, me. Humanity is a plague.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this quote describing both the problem and the source of the problem which is not a lack of science but a lack of selflessness. There certainly is goodness in humanity worth preserving yet it is not at all unreasonable to describe us as you do.

Technological progress up the Kardashev scale does nothing to solve the problem. In fact it makes the problem worse by spreading it out farther and giving us more power to use unwisely. Transforming us from a plague upon the earth into an eternal plague upon the universe does not strike me as an admirable purpose.

Our purpose must be something more then simple propagation or genetic success as that road is clearly a dead end. The writing is already on the wall that our technological progress will soon obsolete our genetics.

Reproductive strategy is likely to become essentially irrelevant for humanity, possibly within our lifetimes. It seems inevitable that our existing biological bodies will give way to different forms that will carry us off-planet. At that point, allowing and enabling all individuals to thrive in a constructive environment becomes paramount. What then is the protocol that keeps that freedom from becoming destructive? Of course, my thinking is that the protocol is outlined in the Christian bible.

The only solution to the problem of humanity is for us all to strive for selflessness which also requires us to be superrational. Our species is very bad at that.

See: Superrationality
and
See: Multiverse Wide Cooperation

Religion is the only thing capable of rectifying mankind. It is also the only force that can somewhat mitigate our selfishness problem on this earth.

[Mometaskers]

I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?

Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.

[IadixDev]

Fertilized eggs are not beings, never mind human beings.

Ontologically speaking even a stone is a being  

So now we play with words.

You know what I meant, a sentient being, not that it merely exists.

Words are important

Edelman and the likes show that its not that easy to know where sentience and consciousness really starts or ends.

At which point you consider a cell or a group of cell is sentient or not ?

It is hard to determine exactly when this happens as it is a cumulative process, and it is dependent on the environment and genetics.
It is also species-dependent.

To be aware of your environment you need some sort of complex brain.  In the case of a human pregnancy, I am sure that in most cases, a viable fetus is a sentient being.

Consciousness is a result of your brain processing all the inputs, current and past.  When you deprive your brain of oxygen, it slowly dies, when all cells die and the RNA/DNA in your brain cells fragments, there is no going back, your brain is dead forever, and your consciousness ends forever.  

The claim made earlier in this thread that a fertilized egg is a human being is so ridiculous that it blows my mind how people can be so dogmatic.

I only entertained it to lead them out of their logical fallacy.

Its not a very good answer, edelman first got a nobel prize studying imune system, and in itself its aware of its environnement, able to have memory, detect infectious agent / toxins, albeit not being directly connected to the central nervous system.

If you follow edelman boostrap theory with the reentrant connection and different level of consciousness, it show higher cognitive function are still heavily dependant on feedback from physiology. Essentially in this theory what drive the developpment of higher cognitive function is fitting physiological input, and physiology depend on chemical interaction and physical constraint etc

Even monocellular organism can display a form of sentience, and awareness of environnement with "intelligent" reaction to promote its survival and reproduction.

Just throwing this also as "food for thought"

https://www.quantamagazine.org/choosy-eggs-may-pick-sperm-for-their-genes-defying-mendels-law-20171115/



Joe Nadeau, principal scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Institute, is challenging this dogma. Random fertilization should lead to specific ratios of gene combinations in offspring, but Nadeau has found two examples just from his own lab that indicate fertilization can be far from random: Certain pairings of gamete genes are much more likely than others. After ruling out obvious alternative explanations, he could only conclude that fertilization wasn’t random at all.

“It’s the gamete equivalent of choosing a partner,” Nadeau said.

His hypothesis – that the egg could woo sperm with specific genes and vice versa – is part of a growing realization in biology that the egg is not the submissive, docile cell that scientists long thought it was. Instead, researchers now see the egg as an equal and active player in reproduction, adding layers of evolutionary control and selection to one of the most important processes in life.



Its really not simple to answer that.

Well its clear we dont observe the manifestation of consciousness outside of a body, but in itself it also its hard To say where sentience really start, descartes tried to find this "seat of reasonning", which he located in the pineal gland, but now we know this to be false, and we still dont really know which organ or which part of the brain really make us sentient, if Its located in the brain at all.

For me from the moment there is a will to survive and grow/reproduce it imply a form of sentience.

[CoinCube]

I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?

Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.

Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion.

Disadvantages of high IQ
Mensa Magazine June 2009 pp 34-5
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2012/08/disadvantages-of-high-iq.html?m=1

Sidis himself demonstrated, in exaggerated form, three traits which I put forward as being aspects of high IQ which are potentially disadvantageous: socialism, atheism and low-fertility.

1. Socialism

Higher IQ is probably associated with socialism via the personality trait called Openness-to-experience, which is modestly but significantly correlated with IQ. (To be more exact, left wing political views and voting patterns are characteristic of the highest and lowest IQ groups – the elite and the underclass - and right wingers tend to be in the mid-range.)

Openness summarizes such attributes as imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity – it also (among high IQ people in Western societies) predicts left-wing political views. Sidis was an extreme socialist, who received a prison sentence for participating in a May Day parade which became a riot (in the event, he ‘served his time’ in a sanatorium).

Now, of course, not everyone would agree that socialism is wrong (indeed, Mensa members reading this are quite likely to be socialists). But if socialism is regarded as a mistaken ideology (as I personally would argue!), then it could be said that high IQ people are more likely to be politically wrong. But whether correct or wrong, the point is that high IQ people do seem to have a built-in psychological and political bias.

[af_newbie]

I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?

Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.

Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion.

Disadvantages of high IQ
Mensa Magazine June 2009 pp 34-5
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2012/08/disadvantages-of-high-iq.html?m=1

Sidis himself demonstrated, in exaggerated form, three traits which I put forward as being aspects of high IQ which are potentially disadvantageous: socialism, atheism and low-fertility.

1. Socialism

Higher IQ is probably associated with socialism via the personality trait called Openness-to-experience, which is modestly but significantly correlated with IQ. (To be more exact, left wing political views and voting patterns are characteristic of the highest and lowest IQ groups – the elite and the underclass - and right wingers tend to be in the mid-range.)

Openness summarizes such attributes as imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, preference for variety and intellectual curiosity – it also (among high IQ people in Western societies) predicts left-wing political views. Sidis was an extreme socialist, who received a prison sentence for participating in a May Day parade which became a riot (in the event, he ‘served his time’ in a sanatorium).

Now, of course, not everyone would agree that socialism is wrong (indeed, Mensa members reading this are quite likely to be socialists). But if socialism is regarded as a mistaken ideology (as I personally would argue!), then it could be said that high IQ people are more likely to be politically wrong. But whether correct or wrong, the point is that high IQ people do seem to have a built-in psychological and political bias.

The article contradicts itself. On one hand, it states that high IQ individuals are more likely to be selfish and then it says that they are more left-leaning.

People who support socialism (and its derivative communism) do it for two reasons: to get free stuff or are genuinely concerned about the well being of the less fortunate.

I suspect that some high IQ individuals are more empathetic (because they can foresee multitudes of outcomes and identify multiple root causes of the issues) to the less fortunate, that is why they lean towards socialism. And there are some high IQ individuals who see socialism as a power grab and are vehemently against it.

In either case, high IQ people generally see a couple of moves ahead of everybody else in this chess game called life.

IQ is irrelevant when it comes to politics, religion or lack thereof, IMHO. You don't need to be super smart to become an atheist.
You just need to be educated a little bit. Learn how to eliminate your personal bias, follow the evidence wherever it will lead you.

There are extremely stupid and smart atheists, socialists, and capitalists.   You can do data cherry-picking to get whatever outcome you desire.

But back to your original criticism of society with only high IQ individuals, I have to agree with you, a society with only high IQ individuals would not work with our current human condition.  They would just kill each other. You would end up with the same result if you had only dumb barbarians in society.  Without stratification, societies become unstable.  That is one aspect.  The root cause of the failure is actually the selfish gene that leads us to wars despite of attempted social engineering to prevent it (religion's love you neighbor or progressive thought, love everyone, etc.)

We have a selfish gene that helped us survive to this day.  And we needed some sort of social engineering to control it.  Religion, politics, tribalism, nationalism were tried in the past to achieve this function, with limited success.   Look at our inability to act in the face of a global climate change and destruction of ecosystems.

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

[Mometaskers]

I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?

Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.

Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion.

If that really is the case then that's good that both groups are outliers and the "normal people" outnumber them. I'm still a bit skeptical though, I think empathy/selfishness is a trait separate from intelligence.

[IadixDev]

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ?

[IadixDev]

I understand the 2nd and 3rd points. High IQ people would likely be more conscientious and questioning of existing conventions which meant they're more likely to plan their families (and hence not have large ones) and be more secular. I don't understand why it would nudge them towards socialism though. Are you telling me the majority of people in Venezuela are above average IQ?

Anyway, don't let your religion kill you these holidays. Be easy on all the parties and on Christmas dinner.

Both the extremes of high and low IQ appear to nudge people towards socialism. Here is the original source for that point of discussion.

If that really is the case then that's good that both groups are outliers and the "normal people" outnumber them. I'm still a bit skeptical though, I think empathy/selfishness is a trait separate from intelligence.

For me intelligence is the same thing as empathy/consciousness. Its the ability to be aware of your surrounding. Some says the developpment of intelligence is more related to ability to live in large groups of individual rather than understanding physics with asperger syndrome.

[af_newbie]

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ?

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

[IadixDev]

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ?

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me

[af_newbie]

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ?

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-links-maternal-genes-selfish-behavior.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

https://news.nd.edu/news/new-studies-link-gene-to-selfish-behavior-in-kids-find-other-children-natural-givers/

[CoinCube]

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

That is quite the assumption. Does that sound at all like humanity to you? Perhaps it would be possible for a different intelligent species elsewhere in the universe. Some much wiser race could probably elevate themselves gradually in this way but not us.

I agree that our future is likely to contained such programmed selfless people but they are far more likely to be manufactured to order by and subject to the whims of the conditioners grounded in the self and outside of that control. In short the technology is certain to be abused. When has humanity ever not abused technology?

C.S. Lewis laid out how this will probably go in his book "The Abolition of Man"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI&t=2s

[CoinCube]

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-links-maternal-genes-selfish-behavior.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

https://news.nd.edu/news/new-studies-link-gene-to-selfish-behavior-in-kids-find-other-children-natural-givers/

I agree that presenting this as a problem of a few bad genes is oversimplification. The problem is deeper then that. While it is certainly true that there are some genes that make the problem worse and other genes that mitigate it to a small degree the problem persists even among those with more favorable genetics.  

For example most people would say that their friends and neighbors are "good people". However, in your personal life how many friends and neighbors would you be willing on trust alone hold onto your savings of say $100,000 for safekeeping? The number of "good people" we find around us drops remarkable quickly when we really really require them to be good in the face of temptation.

The problem goes far beyond a few bad genes that can be targeted and modified. Human nature itself is infused with tremendous evil. We are truly fallen creatures.

We are wolves by nature. Some wolves are restrained by physical cages, others by fear of cages and punishment. The best of us try and to some degree succeed in putting the wolf in us to sleep and restrain ourselves allowing that which is best to emerge. In all cases, however, the wolf is never gone deep down it remains.

“Yes, but mark, what is true one day is not false another; "the carnal mind is enmity against God" at all times. The wolf may sleep, but it is a wolf still. The snake with its azure hues, may slumber amid the flowers, and the child may stroke its slimy back, but it is a serpent still; it does not change its nature, though it is dormant. The sea is the house of storms, even when it is glassy as a lake; the thunder is still the mighty rolling thunder, when it is so much aloft that we hear it not. And the heart, when we perceive not its ebullitions, when it belches not forth its lava, and sendeth not forth the hot stones of its corruption, is still the same dread volcano. At all times, at all hours, at every moment.” - REV. C. H. Spurgeon

 

The only real solution would require a voluntary and complete transformation of each and every human being into something that was pure. It would require a change so profound the only analogy I can think of is transformation of a bunch of individual cancer cells on a Petri dish to into a full and functional intelligent multicellular organism with each cell working for the greater good of the whole.

While this task may be theoretically achievable I think it is fairly obvious that our species lacks what it takes to accomplish it on our own. I will share a couple more quotes that sprang to mind while writing this post.

Romans 7:18
For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.
Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

John 3:3-3:6
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

[BADecker]

^^^ This is where I fail at times. The only way to convert anyone to faith is to use the words of the Bible. My words are mostly not good enough paraphrasing of what the Bible says to do the job.

[af_newbie]

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-links-maternal-genes-selfish-behavior.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

https://news.nd.edu/news/new-studies-link-gene-to-selfish-behavior-in-kids-find-other-children-natural-givers/

I agree that presenting this as a problem of a few bad genes is oversimplification. The problem is deeper then that. While it is certainly true that there are some genes that make the problem worse and other genes that mitigate it to a small degree the problem persists even among those with more favorable genetics.  

For example most people would say that their friends and neighbors are "good people". However, in your personal life how many friends and neighbors would you be willing on trust alone hold onto your savings of say $100,000 for safekeeping? The number of "good people" we find around us drops remarkable quickly when we really really require them to be good in the face of temptation.

The problem goes far beyond a few bad genes that can be targeted and modified. Human nature itself is infused with tremendous evil. We are truly fallen creatures.

We are wolves by nature. Some wolves are restrained by physical cages, others by fear of cages and punishment. The best of us try and to some degree succeed in putting the wolf in us to sleep and restrain ourselves allowing that which is best to emerge. In all cases, however, the wolf is never gone deep down it remains.

“Yes, but mark, what is true one day is not false another; "the carnal mind is enmity against God" at all times. The wolf may sleep, but it is a wolf still. The snake with its azure hues, may slumber amid the flowers, and the child may stroke its slimy back, but it is a serpent still; it does not change its nature, though it is dormant. The sea is the house of storms, even when it is glassy as a lake; the thunder is still the mighty rolling thunder, when it is so much aloft that we hear it not. And the heart, when we perceive not its ebullitions, when it belches not forth its lava, and sendeth not forth the hot stones of its corruption, is still the same dread volcano. At all times, at all hours, at every moment.” - REV. C. H. Spurgeon

 

The only real solution would require a voluntary and complete transformation of each and every human being into something that was pure. It would require a change so profound the only analogy I can think of is transformation of a bunch of individual cancer cells on a Petri dish to into a full and functional intelligent multicellular organism with each cell working for the greater good of the whole.

While this task may be theoretically achievable I think it is fairly obvious that our species lacks what it takes to accomplish it on our own. I will share a couple more quotes that sprang to mind while writing this post.

Romans 7:18
For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.
Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

John 3:3-3:6
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
"How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

I never said it is easy.  Social engineering (religions and similar tools) can only do so much.

Reading good books (biographies, history, psychology or sociology) might help.  

I think understanding human nature, understanding the harm your actions inflict on others can help you to become more empathetic to others. But in the end, if you are an asshole from the get-go, you'll probably die an asshole.  No book can fix you.  
You'll read the Bible or the Quran and continue to be an asshole.

How many priests read the Bible every day and abuse little kids right after their Bible reading?  
How many Muslims read the Quran and go out and kill non-Muslims?

You have to believe that the 'medication' (God/salvation/magic etc.) you are taking will really help you, for the placebo effect (be a better person) to work.

[IadixDev]

How do you stop the expression of that selfish gene?  That is a very difficult task.

The only way to solve this evolutionary 'defect' is to develop artificial reproductive technology where we can control the outcome and produce individuals who would be incapable of being selfish. Eventually, 'messy, selfish biological offsprings' would die-off and you would have only selfless people who were manufactured to order.  Assuming the last 'selfish person' dies without abusing this technology, you'll end up with civilization that might be able to survive what is ahead of us.

How do you know selfishness/selflessness is the expression of a gene ?

People's personal traits seem to be genetic.  Why some siblings are born selfish (most of them) and some are selfless from the get-go?  They share the same environment so it is fair to assume that their selfishness or lack thereof is genetic.

Its a bit too empirical to be convincing for me

https://phys.org/news/2010-09-links-maternal-genes-selfish-behavior.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-people-naturally-inclined-to-cooperate-or-be-selfish/

https://news.nd.edu/news/new-studies-link-gene-to-selfish-behavior-in-kids-find-other-children-natural-givers/

Its still mostly empirical, doesnt show what protein this gene code for and how it influence a person behavior.

[af_newbie]

^^^ This is where I fail at times. The only way to convert anyone to faith is to use the words of the Bible. My words are mostly not good enough paraphrasing of what the Bible says to do the job.

Using the Bible to convert someone to your faith would only work on people who never read the Bible, are gullible, don't care if it is true, want to believe in something bigger than themselves, and will only read the nice passages you tell them to read.  

If you want to convert Atheists, you need to use non-Biblical evidence.

Most Atheists read the Bible more than once, some were preachers, and most know it better than you.  
You cannot convince an Atheist that the Bible is a true word of God and use the Bible to do it. LOL.  

It would be as if an Atheist would try to convert you to stop believing in Jesus, believe in Atum instead and use the Book of the Dead to do it.