I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as an altruistic act. Most religions claim to be altrustic at their base - but then offer rewards for doing good. "Act this way and you will get into heaven." They go so far as well to punish wrong doing, IMO eliminating any hope of altruism. To me, if you are doing good because you are told to and because you are seeking a reward (i.e. heaven, enlightenment, etc), are you not being individualistic at its base? Yes, you are helping others and improving society, but if you are rewarded, no matter your motivation, you are still living in accordance with the idea set forth in individualist works. Even if you turn DOWN any reward - doesn't it make you feel good to do good? Isn't that a reward?
I am also of the opinion that if you believe in ANY doctrine, how can you TRULY believe it if you don't know what else is out there - if you don't know the opposition? How much credence do you lend to an evolutionist who doesn't know what creationism is? Or vice versa?
Particularly in Christianity, if you are a believer, then it is important to know the opposing viewpoints and what else is out there. It is a religion of dichotomy. Without evil, there is no good. Shouldn't you understand who and what you are "fighting?" In addition, the VAST majority of organized religion followers take 100% of their information about the opposition from their own doctrine. Again, is this good practice? If I want to learn about the tactics of the enemy, I study the enemy, I don't just listen to my allies about what they THINK the enemy is like.
Plus, if your beliefs are that strong, then they can withstand expansion of your experience and world view and even reading something with an offputting name.
For the record, I really think that naming the book "The Satanic Bible" is a marketing and nomenclature tactic and does not (as others have said) describe the biblical satan.
Although Levey is a CREEPY looking dude.