The Problem With Satanism

The intention was clear: to adopt an adversarial stance against unrighteousness, against blind faith, and against the often-horrific behaviours advocated or implicitly condoned in ancient scriptures. If Yahweh represented an oppressive, capricious authority, then his ultimate adversary, Satan, seemed a fitting symbol for the counter-force. Yet, in choosing the name of another malevolent being – however symbolic – as a counteraction to another, the founders of these modern religious movements arguably missed the mark, like an arrow veering wildly from its intended target.

This choice created an immediate, almost insurmountable, barrier to understanding. On one hand, it undeniably acted as an enticement to a dubious fringe, those genuinely drawn to the dark aesthetic, the transgressive thrill, or even outright malevolence. The cultural baggage of “Satan” is heavy with images of evil, sacrifice, and corruption, attracting individuals who embody the very antithesis of the movement’s stated ethical goals.

Yet, as numerous studies and the literature itself reveal – epitomised by works like Compassionate Satanism – the vast majority of those who identify as Satanists today are, by their own tenets, decent, law-abiding individuals. Their core principles often revolve around self-ownership, personal responsibility, the pursuit of knowledge, critical thinking, compassion, and courtesy. They value empathy, justice, and the betterment of humanity, often seeing their “Satanic” identity as a celebration of defiance against arbitrary authority and a commitment to individual ethical development rather than an embrace of evil.

The paradox is stark: a philosophy advocating humanism, reason, and kindness cloaked in the name of a universally recognised symbol of pure malevolence. This disconnect creates unnecessary problems. It fuels prejudice, invites misrepresentation, and forces adherents into constant defensive explanations. It erects a wall of immediate suspicion between them and the broader society they often wish to positively influence, or at least coexist peacefully within.

Furthermore, this issue touches on a profound concern: the significant body of research and anecdotal evidence suggesting the existence of malevolent spiritual entities. Whether one believes in such a realm or not, to knowingly name one’s faith or philosophy after such a being, even if purely symbolic, carries a certain risk or, at the very least, an aesthetic imprudence. It feels like “sin” in its original, more profound sense: hamartia, “missing the mark.” The mark, in this case, being a clear and unambiguous articulation of their noble aims.

Might it not have been better for those who spearheaded these new movements to have chosen terms that just as powerfully symbolised their adversarial spirit, their intellectual rebellion, and their pursuit of self-sovereignty, but without the infernal associations? The need for a symbol of defiance against dogma is valid; the choice of that symbol is questionable.

Consider alternative names, terms that convey the spirit of intellectual rebellion, self-actualisation, and ethical autonomy without invoking ancient specters of evil:

1. Promethians: This name beautifully encapsulates the spirit. Prometheus stole fire (knowledge, enlightenment) from the gods to give to humanity, suffering eternally for his defiance against divine tyranny. It signifies bold knowledge, creative rebellion, and the upliftment of humanity through self-reliance.
2. Aethelites: Derived from the Old English “aethel,” meaning noble, excellent, or pre-eminent. This name would signify a commitment to inherent human worth, the pursuit of ethical excellence, and a nobility of spirit that stands apart from the mundane or dogmatic. It grounds the movement in self-actualised virtue.
3. Luminares: Echoing “light-bringers” but without the biblical baggage of Lucifer. It suggests those who bring illumination through reason, critical thought, and compassion, dispelling the darkness of ignorance and superstition.
4. The Unbound: A simple, powerful term that speaks directly to the core desire to be free from conditioning, dogma, and external authoritarian dictates. It represents intellectual, spiritual, and ethical liberty.
5. The Architects of Virtue: This name emphasises the self-wrought nature of their ethics. It highlights the active construction of a moral framework based on reason and empathy, distinct from externally imposed religious laws.
6. The Autonomists: Directly conveying the central tenet of self-governance and individual agency, a philosophical stance against heteronomy (governance by external laws). It speaks to self-determination in ethics and thought.

Ultimately, the intent behind many modern Satanic movements is laudable – a rejection of dogma, an embrace of reason, and a commitment to compassionate living. But the name itself, “Satanist,” remains a vexing and unnecessary impediment. It’s a self-imposed obstacle course, forcing a constant clarification that their “adversarial” spirit is against tyranny and unrighteousness, not against goodness itself. A more fitting banner, one that clearly signals their ethical foundation and intellectual rebellion without the infernal baggage, would allow their message to resonate more purely and powerfully, fulfilling their objectives without missing the mark.

—

See: (1) About The Satanic Temple (2) Lilith Starr.