But I actually think Sizemore is right. He writes, “Rand’s fiction sucks for the same reason so much Christian fiction sucks. It is endlessly didactic, so busy preaching it forgets to pay close attention to life. Her characters deliver lectures. You don’t have to look closely to see they are puppets with Rand’s own lips moving eerily under the mask, her angry eyes staring out through holes in the rubber face. The bad guys in her books are straw men called collectivism, and altruism and they speak only in bromides and Rand gleefully bats them down.”

This is a critique of her as a writer. It is not a critique of her as a philosopher or as a person. And, it’s actually a pretty valid critique regardless of whether or not you agree with her philosophy.

That aside, you did read the quotes from Ayn where she wildly misrepresents the doctrines of the Christian faith – right? You did read her notes in the margins of The Abolition of Man where she twists C.S. Lewis’ words and attacks him personally – right?

“Uhmmmm…Pot? Yeah, this is Kettle. You do know that you’re black…right? Right?!”

On to the main points. You write, “In any attempt to deny Reality, it must be acknowledged and used.” Agreed, and this kind of gets at my problem. Ayn writes that she can only recommend the, “three A’s” — Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.” but, she is the only one of these philosophers to deny a supernatural or transcendent reality. In radically departing from Aristotelean and Thomastic philosophy she is effectively redefining reality and existence in a way that is profoundly different from the other two philosophers whom she compares herself to.

To be clear – it is her redefinition of reality and existence as being merely material that becomes her faulty premise. And again, this is a radical departure from both Aristotle and Aquinas.

The point of this article wasn’t to “prove” a supernatural or transcendent reality, but rather to note the way that Objectivism’s deficient understanding of existence and reality leads to a deficient understanding of the Christian faith.

As to my own requirements for faith…in this article I linked to two other articles that I had written which address the subject of faith and reason in a far more comprehensive way:
1. Thoughts on the Intersection of Faith and Reason
2. Thoughts on Absolute Truth and Certainty in a Post-Modern Relativistic World.

Hope that helps to clarify a few points, thanks again for the comments!

Couldn’t wait! Finally someone having an honest discussion opposed to Ayn Rand without twisting her words or attacking her personality.

Then you deferred to someone else’s quote that did just that and which had no substance rebuttal to the actual problem you had.

Yours seems to be a dogmatic belief simply out of faith – which is not only precisely her point but proves her point.
In any attempt to deny Reality, it must be acknowledged and used.

Sigh – another win to the Russian.