Pretty moronic statement on his part, it just twists the definition of what altruism is and makes words meaningless.
Common experience tells us there is a big difference between a person who acts altruistically and one who acts selfishly, regardless of how it makes them feel.
I mean, even a moron should be able to tell the difference between an act that makes two people feel good, versus an act that makes only one person feel good. Even the notion of ‘feeling good’ is so simplistic and juvenile, it does not capture the range of human emotion and motivation.
You are right about the notion of feeling good being simplistic. Otoh, when you peal away the many layers, it is rare that actions deviate from the most basic motivations of either gaining pleasure or avoiding pain.
The argument then is which is the stronger motivation, gain pleasure or avoid pain. One of the biggest determinants of a "successful" person in life is their impulse control and how they handle delayed gratification. This is true for a Christian life or a secular life.
Perhaps altruism in its most pure form would be found in those who sacrifice themselves to save another, who give no thought to themselves, their welfare, even their own life.
These acts raise "love your neighbor as yourself" to the next level and, in the moment, there is no thought of gratification, just action. That might fit the definition of altruism as a truly selfless act.