And I am absolutely convinced you don't wish to convert anyone as a matter of principle and likely bristle at my suggestion that that is what you seek to do because you've said iit a number of times. But understand that is how you will be perceived, and ask yourself if you don't truly hope to change someone who relies on revelation to rely on reason. — Hanover

I disagree that my sketch of an approach to religious people attempts to convince a religious person to give up on revelation and rely on reason. It explains how a supernatural creator of the universe created morality. It does not claim that the supernatural being does not exist.

By explaining how the Golden Rule can, as Jesus said, "summarize morality", I engage with their religious beliefs rather than refute them.

By bringing up the "pure" form of morality revealed by science and explaining that people (just as religious people already know) self-interestedly modify morality to benefit themselves and their groups, I engage with a dominant theme and quandary in the academic Christian morality literature. That theme and quandary is how to explain the evil morality advocated for in the New Testament (homosexuality is evil and women must be submissive to men). I think many Christians (particularly academics) would be delighted to hear this message and its offer of an escape from their quandary.

Sure, maybe I'll find out differently - my communication skills may not be up to the task. But my goal is to meet religious people where they are and present morality as cooperation as an idea that can improve their lives as religious people.

What choice do I have if I want people to benefit from this knowledge? There are a great many religious or semi-religious people in the world who would like the morality handed down by tradition or sacred book to make more sense. I offer that.

Hanover,

I want to thank you for prompting me about how I might usefully communicate this information to people who are religious. It triggered some productive thinking.

First, the obvious people to start with are religious academics who focus on “evolutionary accounts of altruism, morality, and religion” as does Jeffrey P. Schloss (Distinguished Professor of Biology and T. B. Walker Chair of Natural & Behavioral Sciences at Westmont College).

Second, I was able to add brief explanations to my paper about how morality as cooperation, since its cooperation strategies are as innate to our universe as their simple mathematics, could be understood by religious people as God’s creation of moral means. Further, these moral means are compatible with religious goals of loving each other and helping the poor and immigrants. I think it improved the paper.

I expect Jeff is too busy to be a reviewer, but perhaps he will suggest another expert in evolutionary morality and religion.

Robin Dunbar woudl be worth a look in that area.

Anyway, looks interesting how you are trying to define morality. I am curious what your position has in common with emotivism and how if differs. I see a kind of commonality in you saying that morality is cooperation much in the same manner emotivism frames morality as based on emotional attitudes.

Where and how does your approach differ? How so? I mean in terms of rational approach rather than the origin of approach. Would it be too much of a stretch to call what you mean as being a game theory or morality instead of cooperation as morality? If not, how so?