It was slightly surprising for me to discover that one of my housemates was in possession of the Satanic Bible.
Actually, I didn't even know there was a Satanic bible, per se, until he told me he owned one.
Now, the natural reaction for anyone (I'd imagine) upon hearing of such a thing would be to expect it to be a little... freaky. It's frankly not. I was told in no uncertain terms that there wasn't anything really objectionable in the Satanist's philosophy, and that's at least partly true. Let's take a look.
First up, the term "satanism" has a pretty broad meaning - even more so than the terms "Christian" or "Muslim", at least to my eye.
Wikipedia is a reasonable start, though it'll suffice to say that whatever you think satanism is, the Satanic Bible (by Anton LaVey), is probably somewhat different. This is because it's LaVey's creation from start to finish, with no real foundation from any other philosophy (non-economic philosophy at any rate).
I should mention at this stage that I was warned about LaVey's... curious... attitude towards... well, what can only be described as "magic" or "sorcery". I suspect (like any other purported religious document), his work is a product of its time, but then there are many many people even today who honestly believe the movement of the stars has some secret information about our day to day lives, or that one can devine water in the ground and so on.
Magic (in the non-theatrical sense) is utter nonsense. I refuse to accept otherwise, and it's one of the few areas in which I have no doubt whatsoever - there are no psychics, ghosts, telekinetic people, deviners, sorcerors, demons or little levitating men (with or without carpets). There simply aren't. Maybe we'll one day produce a human who is able to detect magnetic fields, or communicate telepathically, but right now, we can't. And anyone telling you otherwise is either very silly or trying to sell you something (or sadly, both).
LaVey starts his work with a preface rambling about magic - white and black magic, secret grimoirs and "esoteric rubbish" (his words). He states that with "very few exceptions" they are "sanctimonius fraud".
This isn't a good start for a genuine skeptic. "Very few exceptions"?. Such a lukewarm or muddy beginning to the book that claims to have a sane and rational answer to the question of the ideal religion does not provide comfort for the likes of me.
However, overlooking his slightly bizarre and contradictory affection for "magic", we can take a look at a few of the principles he sets forth:
*Indulgence is put forth as the proper replacement for abstinence.
LaVey makes a rather peculiar distinction between "indulgence" and "compulsion", but that doesn't come until later, so we shall leave it too.
*Vengeance is put forth as the correct response to one who wrongs another.
I begrudgingly set aside my distaste for LaVey's fondness of magic, but he's struck out on this count as well. Vengeance is not equivalent to justice - revenge is also not a mature or civilised response to an event. Revenge is something which typically springs from instinct - it's a knee-jerk reaction. But then again, vengeance could be considered an indulgence, so I guess it's at least consistent. It hasn't seemed to have worked out so well in northern Ireland or Israel/Palestine, but I digress.
*A mention of psychic vampires. He doesn't explain at this point what such a thing is, but his explanation (tedious though it is) will appear as piss-poor as it sounds, just not in the way you think. Seriously. Psychic vampires. That might have sounded cool when I was 12.
*An assertion that human beings are "just another animal" and "more often worse" than our other animal counterparts. Apparently we're the most vicious animals of all.
I daresay it wouldn't take a biologist to point out a few differences separating human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom, but as someone who believes in the ideal of humanity, I guess I'm biased.
---
In this post, I'll address only the first point listed here: Indulgence vs Compulsion
LaVey states (roughly, I can't find the exact quote amongst the turgid prose) that indulgence is consciously feeding a want - food, sex, possessions, while compulsion is turning your want into a need.
This is frankly bullshit. Compulsion is what causes us to fucking eat in the first place. Compulsion is what drives the animals that LaVey so holds up as an example. You feed a goldfish, the fuckers don't stop until they explode. That's not indulgence, it's just too damn stupid to stop eating.
Religion doesn't ban possessions (as a rule) - certainly if one feels called to be a monk in the middle of nowhere, that's probably going to be a given, but nobody is forcing anybody to take that path. Religion isn't a barrier to good food, drink or material goods - obviously it isn't, take a look around you. There are more believers than agnostics and atheists, and there are a tonne of unnecessary goods and services around for our society. To say that religion encourages one to give up all pleasure is patently false - LaVey is either deliberately ignoring this fact, or he simply doesn't get it (either being equally likely).
He then goes on to run through some of the (hilariously anachronistic) deadly sins; gluttony, he says, is "simply eating more than you need to keep you alive", and it may well lead to obesity, in which case, he asserts, "pride, another deadly sin" will kick-in and motivate you to excercise in order to lose weight and (presumably) look good again.
Does that argument seriously appeal to anyone? I'd like to know how many psych graduates would read that nonsense without flinching.
We live in a world in which assisted weight loss is a huge money spinner - if precious pride alone were the solution to our obesity "epidemic", I'd be a damn sight slimmer than I am now.
Here's a thought, Anton - how about instead of hoping your chain reaction of utterly unlikely events occurs, we just don't over-fucking-eat to begin with?
That way, I can engage in sloth and still be thin.
No, seriously, what the fuck? Where was he going with this?
Let's step back and take a look at "indulgence, compulsion and abstinence" in a slightly different (less utterly fucking stupid) light.
I abstain from overeating, and as a result, I don't get fat (or more importantly, heart disease).
Sorted. Simplest solution, right there. Now, let's assume I indulge my fat face all the freakin' time. How easy is it to abstain from overeating then?
It fucking isn't. My indulgences have been trained into compulsions. If I'd excercised some self-control, this wouldn't be an issue.
LaVey's unwillingness or inability to equate religion's "abstinence" with common garden-variety "self-control" is one of the first of the failures of his religion (which by the way has really taken the world by storm, congratulations on being a major world power, tiger). Sadly, there are many more.
What could have been an interesting discussion or rough guide on how to live a moral life without the need of that morality being handed down to us from a higher power, is just another preachy book written by a guy with a god complex. More on that later.
Oh yeh:
As a post-script, I apologise if this post started out sounding almost reasonable and then wound up in a heap of cynical contempt, but from the little I know of the man, I don't much like Anton LaVey. His criticism of religion isn't what bothers me - religion has copped far worse (and better phrased) criticism than his, it's his attitude of "god-given" rightness. There's no room for doubt in LaVey's world - as far as he's concerned, each person is an island and a law unto themselves, but this is so obviously not true, I have to wonder where he and his followers get the gall to be so hypocritical - for me, the LaVeyan Satanist is only just a notch below the fundamentalist Christian as far as irrationality goes.
