Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 41
Interesting Times
Kevin Garvey -Linda Blood
Abstract
The report, Satanism in America, by the Committee for the Scientific
Examination of Religion (CSER) purports to show dm destructive effects and
criminal activities allegedly associated with Satanism are actually the product
of hysteria and can be explained away by exposing the “opportunism,
emotional instability, and religious bigotry” of those who concern themselves
with these problems. Here we show that the CSER report itself contains
fundamental methodological flaws, including use of the logical fallacy known
as the argumentum ad hominem, a naive approach to its subject, disregard
for the empirical evidence, and omission of material damaging to the public
postures of the “recognized satanic churches.” Thus a work which could have
been a valuable contribution to the debate over the nature and extent of
problems associated with Satanism merely contributes to, and indeed serves
to aggravate, the already existing polarization concerning this subject.
Irony and pathos increasingly emerge as the criteria by which our era must be assessed. As
the signs of social deterioration multiply, swarms of pundits and apologists gather to feast
on the shards of our former hopes and certitudes. The spectacle created by the advocates of
competing viewpoints is a disquieting reminder of the Chinese aphorism, “May you live in
interesting times.” We do indeed, and the irony is that the increased interest generated by
the commentators on our crises too often fosters pathos. This is especially true when the
pundits and apologists are easily exposed by their own inadequacies. Such is the case with
Satanism in America, the recent report by the Committee for the Scientific Examination of
Religion (CSER).
This report was written by a collection of authors officially representing the Academy of
Humanism. This group is integrally connected to the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which has produced various and
admirable works exposing religious and scientific frauds. The parent group has as associates
such reputable people as Martin Gardner and Carl Sagan. It is not necessary to agree with
every word such people utter to know that one is being addressed by honest scholarship,
intelligent reasoning, and challenging opinion. Such, alas, is not the case with Satanism in
America, and that is why this report merits a detailed critique. It is not worthy of its
impressive lineage, which endows it with an undeserved presumption of credibility.
The obvious dilemmas posed by this report may partially stem from the fact that it was
prepared by a committee. The primary authors are: Shawn Carlson, Ph.D., physicist Gerald
Larue, Emeritus Professor of Religion, University of Southern California Gerry O‟Sullivan,
April A. Masche, and D. Hudson Frew. These authors wrote the bulk of the report. Three
shorter reports are included as appendices. They were written by Robert Hicks, a Criminal
Justice Analyst, Kenneth Lanning, a Special Agent of the F.B.I., and Michael Stackpole, who
writes on role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons. This is an impressive-
sounding group. Their product is also impressive -but not for the authors‟ intended
purposes.
What is impressive about this study? The first thing is its temerity. It addresses an
important, difficult, volatile topic without failing to comment on each of its many facets. The
second impressive aspect is the study‟s clearly stated intention. The authors declare in their
Introduction:

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 42
The entire topic of Satanic belief, Satanic religious practices and ritual crime
is an abyss of bigotry and ignorance because of thousand-year-old
superstitions and misunderstanding. Satanism has reached the limelight, and
remained there, because of religious arrogance and intolerance through which
tiny bubbles of truth must perilously percolate [sic] if they are to break onto
the surface of the public mind. Hopefully, this report will be one of those
bubbles and, undoubtedly, this exposed will be quite controversial.1
It should be controversial, but not merely for its audacity. Indeed, the report‟s third
impressive trait is its most important one -its pretentiousness. This shows through in many
ways. The first is its claim to objectivity and scholarship. The second is the moral
indignation it assumes when attacking those who attempt to address satanist influences.
The third reflection of the authors‟ pretensions is clearly discernible in the manner of their
attack on specific individuals: they use a blatant argumentum ad hominem approach rather
than a coherent dissection of the claims of specific individuals. In the process, they
misquote some sources, fail to verify others, and falsely expand their few accurate charges
to include people who are not guilty of the errors alleged by the report. This mode of attack
pervades the report and is accompanied by an equally pervasive, and equally shoddy, strain
of pseudologic.
The CSER report addresses a wide array of categories, people, incidents and statements. To
justify their selection, the authors of the report, and the authors of two of the three
appendices, cite the analytic tool known as Ockham‟s Razor. “Ockham‟s Razor,” the report
states, “is a rule that is used in science, and many other endeavors, that helps sort the
truth from nonsense. It stipulates that when several explanations could explain a SCA of
facts, the one that is most likely to be true is the explanation that is simplest.”2 The authors
then provide us with what amounts to their analytic theme. Emphasizing the importance of
their views by the use of italics, they declare: “Never attribute to international Devil-
worshipping conspiracies what opportunism, emotional instability and religious bigotry are
sufficient to explain.”3 This statement claims the mantle of scientific precision, introduces a
powerful straw man -“international Devil-worshipping conspiracies” -and, in a particularly
scurrilous implication, declares that all concerns about Satanism merely reflect
“opportunism, emotional instability and religious bigotry.”4 This audacious assertion is more
clearly emphasized in the report‟s Abstract. After informing the reader that Gerry O‟Sullivan
“investigated the backgrounds” of those whom the report challenges, the Abstract states:
In addition to presenting an analysis of the allegations made by conspiracy
theory advocates, this report also documents the insanity, severe emotional
problems of some, the thinly disguised extremist Christian agenda of others,
the opportunism of a few and the self-guilt purging crusade of the rest. The
anti- Satanism hysteria that is sweeping the country is being fueled by people
for whom facts have little meaning. They invent “facts” to try and [sic]
marshal the public‟s support on the side of unreason.5
Such extraordinary use of the ad hominem tactic serves the report s need to avoid logical
debate. An examination of the analytic tool, Ockham‟s Razor, explains why the report rests
upon such polemical tactics rather than honest debate.
Ockham‟s Razor derives from the logical principles developed by William of Ockham during
the early fourteenth century. His attempt to revise the assumptions underlying medieval
realism in no way encompassed the report‟s rejection of fact, evidence, and analytic reason.
Ockham‟s effort: .presupposed and was based on the principle that the human mind can
directly apprehend existent individuals and their sensible qualities, and that it can also
directly apprehend its own acts.”6 Ockham should be seen, and used, not as a grammatical
impediment to due investigation, but in the service of a true .economy of ontological