What is Satanism?

 

Satanism is literally “Devil Worship”.  Some modern-day Satanists claim that Anton LaVey (author of The Satanic Bible) coined the term “Satanism” circa 1960.  However, the term “Satanism” can be found in dictionaries pre-dating the 1800’s.  LaVeyan Satanists claim not to believe in the Devil, but engage in behavior that is of a Satan archetype, including ritual magic.  Ironically, some of the tenants of Satanism include axioms such as “[Satan represents] vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams” and “[Satan represents] undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit”.  There have been no attempts by the satanic community to explain how rational thought presupposes the existence of spiritual magic.

 

It is my opinion that mainstream LaVeyan Satanism is merely an attempt to capitalize on shock culture by refuting Christianity.  A majority of the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism could be relegated to the realm of Hedonistic philosophy, and there are no distinct principles within The Satanic Bible that serve to separate it from Hedonism.

 

The Satanic Bible strikes up the same evangelical fervor that is evident in Christian proselytizing.  Where many of the claims made within The Satanic Bible can be backed up factually or historically, LaVey makes no attempt to do so.  Instead, in the course of The Satanic Bible, LaVey builds strawman after strawman, and declares triumph at how he tears them down with ease.

 

In several instances, the apologist LaVey admits that his axioms are vague or “open to interpretation”, but he never attempts to specify in finer detail the crux of his argument, opting instead to express even more generalities and truisms, belying his sophistic nature.  Indeed, more of the text deals with the “ritual magic(k)” of Satanism than it does the philosophical musings of LaVey himself.

 

One example of the further hypocrisy of LaVey’s musings:

 

“It is much simpler to obtain an emotional reaction using words and phrases that cannot be understood than it is with statements which even the simplest mind will question when hearing them in an understandable language.

 

If priests and ministers were to have used the devices to fill their churches one hundred years ago that they use today, they would have been charged with heresy, called devils, oft-times persecuted, but certainly excommunicated without hesitation.” - page 25, The Satanic Bible

 

While he builds up his argumentum ex concessis, argumentum non sequitur, it is not clear whether he approves of this behavior or not, but indeed the implication is that speaking in Latin (which is incidentally an understandable language) is a device by which the clergy obfuscates their real intention.  However on page 90 we find this:

 

“Ol sonuf vaoresaji, gohu IAD Balata, elanusaha caelazod: sobrazod-ol Roray i ta nazodapesad, od comemahe ta nobeloha zodien; soba tahil ginonupe pereje aladi, das vaurebes obolehe giresam. Casarem ohorela caba Pire: das zodonurenusagi cab: erem Iadanahe. Pilahe farezodem zodenurezoda adana gono Iadapiel das home-tohe: soba ipame lu ipamis: das sobolo vepe zodomeda poamal, od bogira aai ta piape Piamoel od Vaoan! Zodacare, eca, od zodameranu! odo cicale Qaa; zodoreje, lape zodiredo Noco Mada, hoathahe Saitan!” – page 90, The Satanic Bible

 

There are not too many syllogisms that can be deduced from this:

 

1. LaVey recognizes it as a device, and employs it to fool his followers.
2. LaVey is contradicting himself.

 

Why I dislike LaVeyian Satanism:

 

Satanism is comprised mainly of people who are characterized by appeals to the emotional and personal character attacks.  LaVeyan Satanism is described by some as an ad hominem rant and not a logical philosophy.  If the Church of Satan is any pragmatic indication of LaVeyan Satanism, observation dictates that this description is for the most part accurate.  However, pragmatism notwithstanding, The Satanic Bible is nothing more than a collection of vague generalities, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.  No original thought is introduced, no previous philosophy is forwarded or credited – indeed – as a piece of sophistic rhetoric, it should be set on the type of pedestal it deserves: the kind that is cylindrical, hollow and open on one side.