"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence"
About this Quote
Ann Landers is doing what advice columnists do best: turning a messy cultural standoff into a clean moral boundary. The line isn’t really about epistemology; it’s about manners. “No one has the right” shifts the debate from whether a belief is true to whether you’re allowed to challenge it. That’s a powerful move in a country where dinner-table civility often substitutes for philosophical clarity.
The phrase “destroy another person’s belief” frames skepticism as violence, not inquiry. Landers isn’t defending superstition so much as defending the psychological scaffolding people use to get through their days: grief rituals, faith, optimism, family myths. Demanding “empirical evidence” becomes the social equivalent of kicking a cane out from under someone who’s still learning to stand. You can hear her readership in the background: spouses in conflict, children rejecting religion, friends sniping at each other’s coping mechanisms. In that world, the “truth” of the belief is less urgent than the fallout from puncturing it.
There’s also a sly, era-specific politics here. In late-20th-century American life, science is both prestige language and a blunt instrument. Landers cautions against using it as a trump card in intimate relationships, where power dynamics matter as much as facts. The subtext: you may be correct and still be cruel. She’s not banning evidence; she’s arguing that the demand for it can be a form of dominance masquerading as rationality.
The phrase “destroy another person’s belief” frames skepticism as violence, not inquiry. Landers isn’t defending superstition so much as defending the psychological scaffolding people use to get through their days: grief rituals, faith, optimism, family myths. Demanding “empirical evidence” becomes the social equivalent of kicking a cane out from under someone who’s still learning to stand. You can hear her readership in the background: spouses in conflict, children rejecting religion, friends sniping at each other’s coping mechanisms. In that world, the “truth” of the belief is less urgent than the fallout from puncturing it.
There’s also a sly, era-specific politics here. In late-20th-century American life, science is both prestige language and a blunt instrument. Landers cautions against using it as a trump card in intimate relationships, where power dynamics matter as much as facts. The subtext: you may be correct and still be cruel. She’s not banning evidence; she’s arguing that the demand for it can be a form of dominance masquerading as rationality.
Quote Details
| Topic | Faith |
|---|
More Quotes by Ann
Add to List
