How Scholars Distinguish Theistic and Atheistic Satanism

Public discussions of Satanism often collapse all forms into a single category. Academic scholarship does not.

Within religious studies, scholars consistently distinguish between atheistic (symbolic) Satanism and theistic (devotional) Satanism as analytically separate expressions within a broader category of modern religious Satanism (Petersen, 2009; Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen, 2016).

The distinction is not merely theological. It concerns classification, ritual function, cosmology, and institutional development.

Understanding how scholars make this distinction clarifies much of the confusion surrounding modern Satanism.

Satanism as a Modern Religious Category

Before distinguishing between branches, scholars first establish a foundational point: modern Satanism is a contemporary religious innovation.

Ruben van Luijk (2016) demonstrates that there is no credible historical evidence for a continuous, organized Satanic religion extending from the medieval period into modernity. Instead, modern Satanism emerges in the 20th century, shaped by literary reinterpretations of Satan, secularization, and Western esotericism.

Dyrendal, Lewis, and Petersen (2016) therefore classify Satanism as a modern new religious movement rather than a survival of ancient cultic practice.

Within that modern category, further distinctions are necessary.

Atheistic Satanism in Academic Classification

The institutional starting point for modern Satanism is widely recognized as the founding of the Church of Satan in 1966 by Anton Szandor LaVey.

In The Satanic Bible (1969), LaVey explicitly rejects belief in a literal supernatural Satan. Satan is framed as a symbol representing human instincts, individual sovereignty, and opposition to Christian moral authority.

Jesper Aagaard Petersen (2009) categorizes this form as rationalist or atheistic Satanism. Key characteristics include:

  • Rejection of supernaturalism

  • Ritual understood as psychodrama

  • Materialist cosmology

  • Emphasis on individual autonomy

In this framework, Satan functions as a literary and psychological archetype rather than an ontologically real being.

Scholars often describe atheistic Satanism as a form of religious self-construction that uses religious language symbolically while maintaining secular metaphysics (Petersen, 2009).

The Emergence of Theistic Satanism

In contrast, theistic Satanism affirms the real existence of Satan as a metaphysical entity.

Dyrendal, Lewis, and Petersen (2016) note that theistic Satanism developed outside of LaVey’s institutional framework and lacks a single founding moment comparable to 1966. Instead, it emerged gradually through decentralized networks, occult subcultures, and later internet communities.

Scholarly descriptions of theistic Satanism emphasize:

  • Belief in a literal Satan or demonic intelligences

  • Devotional ritual practice

  • Invocation understood as spiritual communication

  • Cosmologies that include metaphysical entities

While atheistic Satanism interprets ritual as psychological catharsis, theistic Satanism generally interprets ritual as interaction with a real spiritual presence.

This ontological commitment — whether Satan exists independently of human psychology — is the central axis of scholarly distinction.

Ritual Theory: Psychodrama vs Invocation

One of the clearest analytical differences appears in ritual theory.

In atheistic Satanism, ritual is typically described by practitioners themselves as psychodrama — a dramatic framework designed to produce emotional release and psychological focus (LaVey, 1969; Petersen, 2009).

In theistic Satanism, ritual is often understood as invocation or communion. The practitioner does not merely symbolize an archetype but seeks engagement with an external entity.

From an academic perspective, this difference affects classification:

  • Atheistic Satanism aligns with symbolic religion or religious naturalism.

  • Theistic Satanism aligns with devotional esotericism and contemporary occult spirituality.

Both fall under modern Satanism, but they occupy distinct theological positions.

The Role of Romantic and Esoteric Influence

Per Faxneld (2017) documents how 19th-century literary reinterpretations of Satan and Lucifer shaped later spiritual and philosophical developments. These Romantic portrayals influenced both symbolic and devotional forms.

However, scholars note that theistic Satanism often draws more directly from esoteric traditions that posit real spiritual hierarchies, whereas atheistic Satanism draws more heavily from secular individualism and modern materialism.

Thus, while both share symbolic inheritance, their metaphysical commitments diverge.

Terminology and Scholarly Debate

Academic literature sometimes uses different terms for clarity:

  • Rationalist Satanism (for atheistic forms)

  • Spiritual or devotional Satanism (for theistic forms)

Some scholars emphasize that “Satanism” itself is a contested label, particularly when organizations such as the Church of Satan assert definitional control over the term (Dyrendal, Lewis & Petersen, 2016).

From a scholarly standpoint, however, both atheistic and theistic expressions are recognized as legitimate subjects within the study of contemporary religious Satanism.

The distinction is analytical, not evaluative.

Why the Distinction Matters

For scholars of religion, the difference between atheistic and theistic Satanism is not merely about belief.

It determines:

  • Cosmological structure

  • Ritual interpretation

  • Institutional formation

  • Relationship to broader esoteric traditions

Conflating the two obscures meaningful theological and sociological differences.

Separating them clarifies how modern Satanism functions as a pluralistic religious category.

Conclusion

Academic scholarship distinguishes atheistic and theistic Satanism primarily on ontological grounds: whether Satan is understood as symbolic or as an objectively real spiritual entity.

Both are modern developments.
Both emerged in the context of 20th-century religious innovation.
Both are studied within the field of new religious movements.

The difference lies not in aesthetics or rebellion, but in metaphysics.

Understanding how scholars classify these traditions provides a clearer foundation for examining modern Satanism as a whole.

References

Dyrendal, A., Lewis, J. R., & Petersen, J. A. (2016). The Invention of Satanism. Oxford University Press.

Faxneld, P. (2017). Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture. Oxford University Press.

LaVey, A. S. (1969). The Satanic Bible. Avon Books.

Petersen, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology. Ashgate.

van Luijk, R. (2016). Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism. Oxford University Press.

More stories

The History of Modern Satanism: Historiography, Origins, and Development Since 1966

The History of Modern Satanism: Historiography, Origins, and Development Since 1966

The history of modern Satanism begins in 1966 with the founding of the Church of Satan. From Anton LaVey’s atheistic philosophy to the rise of theistic Satanism and the cultural impact of the Satanic Panic, this article traces the documented development of Satanism as a modern religious movement grounded in academic research.

Non-Theistic Satanism: Philosophy, Ritual, and Modern Expression

Non-Theistic Satanism: Philosophy, Ritual, and Modern Expression

Non-theistic Satanism rejects belief in a literal Devil while retaining ritual, symbolism, and structured philosophy. Emerging in 1966 with the Church of Satan, this modern movement treats Satan as archetype rather than deity. This guide examines its historical foundation, core principles, ritual theory, and academic classification.