Reply to Questions about LaVey – Reader Q&A

An essay written by noted skeptic Michael Shermer [I've met him, decent enough guy, especially for debating idiotic evangelical Christians; he did some work debunking the Satanic ritual abuse BS] on the highly related subject of Ayn Rand called “The Unlikeliest Cult” might be food for thought. My notes are in square brackets.

In it he says, “While the cultic qualities of the group sabotaged the inner circle, there remained (and remains) a huge following of those who ignore the indiscretions, infidelities, and moral inconsistencies of the founder and focus instead on the positive aspects of her [LaVey’s] philosophy. There is much in it to admire, if you do not have to accept the whole package.”

He then says that this suggests two important caveats about cults, skepticism, and reason. “One, criticism of the founder or followers of a philosophy does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy. The components of a philosophy must stand or fall on their own internal consistency or empirical support, regardless of the founder’s or follower’s personality quirks or moral inconsistencies.”

“Two, criticism of part of a philosophy does not gainsay the whole.” He then says, “Rand [LaVey] critics come from all political positions – left, right, and center. Professional philosophers generally refuse to take her [LaVey’s] work seriously (both because she [LaVey] wrote for popular audiences and because her [LaVey’s] work is not considered a complete philosophy [some not so critical do grant Satanism the status of ideology]). There are more Rand [LaVey] critics than followers, although some of them have attacked Atlas Shrugged [The Satanic Bible] without reading it and rejected Objectivism [all Satanic paths] without knowing anything about it.”

He then says, “The great flaw in her philosophy is the belief that morals can be held to some absolute standard or criterion. This is not scientifically tenable. Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are only actions – physical actions, biological actions, human actions. Humans act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral only when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is strictly a human creation, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions, just as other human creations are.” To LaVey's credit, I would say he also recognized Rand's mistake and a lot of the spirit in what Shermer says here is found in The Satanic Bible.

Thank you Venus Satanas for a great response. Kudos for your recognition of the true intent of the questioner. A typical nonsensical strategy employed by weak-minded critics. By attempting to denigrate the Satanic woman or man (in this case LaVey), they think it successfully denigrates the great ideology/philosophy/spirituality that is Satanism and all who call herself or himself a Satanist. Pure bunk. But I’m sure you’ve come to accept and expect the constant attempts to dismiss or ridicule.

“I wont demonize him, but i wont make him a saint either. He was human and he had problems like all the rest of us do.”

Very poignant. Yes, LaVey did some things that some Satanists and non-Satanists wouldn’t do, but as you said well, “So what? He had to deal with his own consequences.” I think following your example and learning everything one can about LaVey is key. The critic wanted to show LaVey as a hypocrite. From what I’ve learned, LaVey never pretended to be something he wasn't to any kind of extent even remotely close to the throngs of hypocritical, self-righteous monotheistic "leaders" and "advisers." He did practice what he preached. More importantly, didn’t he rightfully challenge the hypocrisy of Judeo-Christian ethos and mores while never claiming his alternative was anything to him but a freer and more honest recognition of man’s carnal nature, and not of a “higher” morality?

I think it's correct to say that Satanists are and have always been skeptics. And one can be skeptical of the skeptic and LaVey was not infallible. Personally, I am comfortable with my strong appreciation for his contribution to modern Satanism. But you made an excellent point that we’ve had 3 generations of Satanists and that things are bound to change for the better and you are a perfect example of that with your ideas on Satanic spirituality and independence (not being invested in Satanism as a religion). Satanism isn’t static and we can always improve ourselves as Satanists. And that would include changing our stance on ideas that were once held by LaVey.

Could one say, that as an independent Satanist: (1) no person in Satanism is recognized as an authority, only a contributor of certain degree? (2) one is logically precluded from revering any other person but one’s self firstly, and then only others that one recognizes within our close circle? This would certainly qualify LaVey as a great contributor only. One could still acknowledge disagreement with some of his ideas and personal behavior.

So he was pretty much a hypocritical snake-oil sales man….like every other religious leader you could mention.

'Do not harm an animal unless being attacked or for food' is the rule that resonates most strongly with me, so I was horrified when I found out how abusive he was.

I think it's a shame that when you mention Satanism he's the only person who comes to mind to the uninitiated when there are as many ways to follow a Satanic path as there are individual Satanists.

It's ironic that there are far better people walking this path than the man who actually started it. But then again, some Christians really piss me off and yet one of my best friends is an Anglican preacher who walks her talk and I can respect her for that. In a funny way I feel that she fulfils my definition of Satanic values by 'putting her money where her mouth is'. She never shoves it in your face but neither will she hide her faith or apologise for her convictions and I admire that.