Why did Ayn Rand call herself an uncompromising atheist, but not an activist? Researcher Rand James G. Lennox responds in his new article, now available in the Cambridge History of Atheism.

“I’m a die-hard atheist, but not an activist,” Rand wrote in response to a priest’s letter. “It means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I fight for right, no versus religion.” Why was Rand an atheist and how does her uncompromising advocacy of reason relate to her rejection of religious faith?

These and other questions are the subject of a new scientific article on Ayn Rand in the recent Cambridge History of Atheism, a two-volume comprehensive resource for students and scholars. The volumes cover atheism as far back as 1500 BC (in ancient India) to the current neo-atheist movement in America and emerging atheism in the Islamic world.

The editors invited Rand scholar James G. Lennox to write the chapter “Ayn Rand and Objectivism.” Lennox is professor emeritus in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and a highly regarded scholar of Aristotle and the history of biology. Lennox is perhaps best known to this audience as co-chair of the Ayn Rand Society and co-editor of the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies book series. He is the author of “‘Who Sets the Tone for a Culture?’: Ayn Rand’s Approach to the History of Philosophy” in A companion of Ayn Randedited by Allan Gotthelf and Gregory Salmieri.

In his early fiction and diaries, Lennox shows that Rand is interested in the moral implications of belief in God. The concept of God is degrading: “a belief in God. . . comes into direct conflict with viewing one’s life as one’s highest value,” he writes. To make his point, Lennox draws on Rand’s early fictions and reviews, as well as documents from the Ayn Rand archives.

The next section of the chapter goes to the deepest root of Rand’s atheism: Rand’s objections to the very concept of God. The concept of God — an omnipotent, limitless and omnipresent being — is by its nature rationally incomprehensible. These three properties, Rand argues, are metaphysical impossibilities and, therefore, indefinable. “It’s as if the terms used to define God were chosen precisely so that the only way to believe in such an entity would be through faith,” Lennox explains. Since, Rand argues, the concept of God is not based on any reality or even possible experience, it is rationally unusable, that is to say “invalid”.

Lennox argues that moral and metaphysical-epistemological arguments against God have in common that they are a consequence of Rand’s unique view of reason. Reason, for Rand, is a worldly faculty. Its purpose is to understand the world so that we can act successfully in it. Faith in God undermines the faculty and its functioning. Lennox’s elaboration offers an original insight into the relationship between these arguments and Rand’s view of reason. Rand’s veteran and newbie fans will find great value in Lennox’s article.

Other topics covered in Lennox’s article are:

• Rand’s rejection of the Kantian view of reason;
• His vision of the religious takeover of American conservatism;
• The link between faith and strength.

The chapter joins the growing number of high-quality Ayn Rand scholarships highlighted in previous articles on New ideal.