CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR
SCIENCE' FLUSHES OUT THE PROFESOR!
renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins is on record
for stating there is no God and there is no afterlife.
cross-examination: Professor Richard
Dawkins in court has
been procedurally sworn in to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth. The critical issue is that he has
a duty to investigate the evidence for the afterlife).
Prof Dawkins belongs to that class of closed-minded skeptics
and materialists who do not have the skills, competence
and the ability to perceive evidence for the paranormal
with true empirical equanimity.
For the purpose of the record Professor, you have
been described as a British ethnologist, evolutionary biologist
and author. That sums it up basically?
Yes, it does ...
Victor: You are the author of some very well known
books to do with evolution and God ... is that right?
Dawkins: Yes, that's right.
You have been described in the media- in context of your
traveling around the world promoting your book on atheism-
as the greatest atheist anti-afterlife crusader in the world
to-day ... you agree with that?
(hesitates) ... Yes ... I guess one could call me that ...
Victor: For the purpose of the record,
do you concede that you are a particularly intelligent person?
Yes, I suppose I am ...
Victor: And do you accept that there are
some other internationally known scientists who are just
as intelligent as you are - perhaps some less and some more
intelligent than you are?
I agree there are scientists who are just as intelligent
as I am.
Victor: Just for the record, are you formally
qualified in anything besides biology and genetics?
Dawkins: What are you implying ...?
You are not qualified in physics?
No I'm not.
Victor: Then you are not a physicist ..
Dawkins: No, I'm not. I never made that
Victor: And you never had any formal training
at university level in law?
Dawkins: Of course not!
Then for the record, you are not an attorney with
decades of litigation experience in the highest courts with
extensive knowledge of courts' decisions and precedents
regarding the admissibility of evidence.
Dawkins: No, no, I'm not an attorney ....
no I do not have any experience regarding legal precedents
in evidence ...
Victor: Would it be correct to say that
some scientists do not agree with your scientific views?
Yes, I suppose so.
Victor: More than that Professor, there
are some scientists who violently disagree with you...?
Victor: Do you agree that
there are some theories in science which can be demonstrated
with evidence and there are some that cannot be proven?
Dawkins: Yes, I agree with that ...
And that science and cosmology can be highly speculative?
Dawkins: .... yes, yes... I agree with
Victor: Do you agree that scientists of
equal intelligence and experience can come to opposite conclusions
about the same scientific material?
I'd say the scientists who specialize in one specific area
would have a distinct advantage over those scientists who
Victor: In other words, no scientist ought
to make conclusions about anything unless the scientist
first did the particular research ..
Victor: What would you say to a scientist
who tells you that you are wrong about conclusions in your
own speciality when there is evidence that scientist is
not a cosmologist or biologist and has not done any research
about the matter at all?
Dawkins: I'd have some very harsh words
Victor: Would calling him a complete fool
be reasonable ...?
Dawkins: Yes, that certainly would be ...
Victor: You said earlier you are intelligent
- ... and you also said that there are other scientists
who are just as intelligent as you are ... now, as a professor
and author, do you accept there are smarter people than
you who are not professors, who do not have a university
or college degree and who did not even have a formal education?
... hesitating ... can you be more specific?
Victor: Well what about Richard Branson
who dropped out from school at sixteen - now he is a BILLIONAIRE
... do you regard him as smarter than you?
Dawkins: He's the exception to the rule
Victor: What about Henry Ford... Steve
Jobs, Bill Gates ... billionaires who dropped out... Jay
Von Andel the billionaire who founded Amway? It is reported
that there are lots of billionaires who never got a degree...
are you a billionaire?
No, I'm not ...
Victor: Then you do agree there are people
in the world who are smarter than you are ...
Perhaps in that context they are smarter yes ...
His Honor (looking at Victor): Mr Zammit,
where is this taking us?
This a CREDIBILITY issue your Honor. This is also
about AUTHORITY- and will become clear in a little while
Honor (nods): .. Yes, yes ... go on ...
Victor: Professor Dawkins, are you 'omniscient
and infallible'? Are you someone who is all knowing and
doesn't make mistakes?
Dawkins: ... No I would not say I am omniscient
... I am not all knowing and like everybody else I do make
Victor: You say you are an atheist, but
at least once you referred yourself as an agnostic. Which
is correct - atheist or agnostic?
Dawkins: I suppose you can say I am an
Victor: And you do not accept the EVIDENCE
for the afterlife?
Dawkins: No, I don't ...
Victor: Specifically, has science generally
and specifically disproved the existence of the afterlife?
Dawkins: No, of course not!
As a preface to my question are you aware that
there is substantive afterlife evidence which can be validated
when scientific method is applied - that is, there is the
procedural observation, hypothesis, experimentation and
conclusions - and that the conclusions are consistently
positive - of course all this without religion. You show
you are not interested to investigate this empirically elicited
afterlife evidence - why do you neglect to investigate this
critically important afterlife evidence?
Dawkins: I've been too busy ... and have
my priorities ...
Victor: Too busy to search for the truth?
Dawkins: (looking uncomfortable): Not really
You are on record for saying without having investigated
that there cannot be an afterlife because once we die the
brain is dead, destroyed or buried ... so you do not accept
Dawkins: If there is a mind, then
it is the same as the brain and both are destroyed when
we die ... simple as that ...
Victor: do you have any scientific
proof for that?
Dawkins: No, of course, I would not
be able to demonstrate that ...
Victor: So your belief that the brain and
the mind are the same is a speculative belief?
Dawkins: Until someone can demonstrate
otherwise I will accept that the brain and the mind are
the same ...
Victor: Would you revise that decision
if I tell you that some of the most brilliant scientists
who ever lived on this planet earth using only science,
after investigating, accepted the evidence that on death
the physical brain is destroyed, but the mind survives physical
Dawkins: To which scientists are you referring?
Victor: These great scientists who have
shown they had a huge intellect studied the evidence for
the afterlife and accepted the afterlife ... why ...
Dawkins: What scientists are you talking
Victor: : What scientists
you ask? Professor, have you read the the afterlife works
by ANY of these empirical-scientific afterlife investigators?
Just be patient .. here I give you a list of these scientists
(also hands a copy to the judge) ... (Victor reads from
his notes): these are only some of the scientists I refer
Dr Peter Bander, Dr Julie Beischel, Dr Robert Crookal, Professor
John Bockris, John Logie Baird, Professor Arthur Ellison,
Dr Peter Fenwick, Professor Festa, Dr Edith Fiore, Professor
David Fontana, Dr Amit Goswami, Professor Gustav Geley,
Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss, Professor Stanislav Grof,
Dr Arthur Guirdham, Dr Glen Hamilton, Professor Charles
Hapgood, Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright, Professor James Hyslop,
Professor William James, Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Drs Jeff
and Jody Long, afterlife investigator Mark Macy, (engineer/physics)
George Meek, Dr Raymond Moody, Dr Melvin Morse, Dr Morris
Nertherton, Dr Karlis Osis, Dr Peter Ramster (Psychologist),
Edward C Randall (Lawyer), Dr.Konstantine Raudive, Drs J.B.
and Louisa Rhine, Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Richet,
Dr Kenneth Ring, Dr Aubrey Rose, Professor Archie Roy, Dr
Michael Sabom, Dr Hans Schaer, Professor Marilyn Schlitz,
Dr E Senkowski, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Judge Dean Shuart,
Dr Ian Stevenson, Dr Claude Swanson, Dr Emmanuel Swedenborg,
Professor Jessica Utts, Dr Pim Van Lommel, Professor J.W.
Crawford, Professor Wadhams, Prof. Alfred Wallace, Dr Helen
Wambach, Dr Carl Wickland, Dr Carla Wills-Brandon..
Professor, have you read any of the afterlife works by these
scientists and empirical, scientific afterlife investigators?
Dawkins: … No I have
Victor: Have you investigated ANY of these
scientist's positive conclusions about the afterlife?
Dawkins: I've read a lot of scientists
who criticized the Bible..
Victor: That's NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. Answer
the question! Have you investigated ANY of the scientists
who were once skeptics but who reached positive conclusions
about the afterlife and found results which are fundamentally
contrary to your own fundamental afterlife negative beliefs?
Dawkins: No ...
Victor: Why not?
Dawkins: Because I know
there is no afterlife.
Victor: Earlier you
said you'd have some harsh words for those who come to conclusions
before they investigate - you called them fools I remember,
would you like to use some harsh words on yourself?
Dawkins: .... (keeps quiet)
Victor: As a professor, as an atheist,
as an anti-afterlife crusader, don't you have the intellect,
the fortitude, the motivation and the duty to publish your
reasons for disagreeing with the evidence for the afterlife
other highly intelligent reputable scientists accepted?
Dawkins: I don't see it that way ....
Victor: Aren't you curious?
Dawkins: No ...
Victor: You understand
that empirical and scientific study of the afterlife have
absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs ... do you
understand that distinction?
Dawkins: I'm beginning
Victor: So, you have not
shown WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the evidence for the afterlife
is not or cannot be valid- ... that right?
Dawkins: Yes ... that's right ..
Victor: The inevitable other side of the
coin is that all the empirically and scientifically elicited
afterlife unrebutted evidence COULD ALL BE VALID?
Dawkins: ...(hesitates ...) I do not believe
in the afterlife ...
Victor: That is NOT what I asked you ...
I did not ask you about your beliefs ... I stated that since
you failed to show where when how and why the existing EVIDENCE
for the afterlife is not valid, it follows logically that
in fact the EVIDENCE FOR THE AFTERLIFE COULD BE VALID -
do you understand that now and do you agree with that?
Dawkins: I don't want to answer that question
because there is no afterlife ....
Victor: Your honor ...
His Honor: Yes yes, ... Mr Dawkins ...
just answer the question put to you by Mr Zammit ...
Dawkins - low voice: Yes if there is scientific
evidence I would agree the afterlife evidence could be valid
Victor: Could you repeat
that, a little louder enough for the members of the jury
to hear what you are saying?
Dawkins: Yes if there is scientific evidence
I would agree the afterlife evidence could be valid ...
Victor: Why did you not investigate the
evidence yourself on something as hugely important as the
Dawkins: I don't believe in it...
Victor: So you do not accept
the afterlife - not because science has not proved the afterlife
does not exist, but you personally do not BELIEVE in the
afterlife . .... keeping on repeating that you are negatively
programmed against accepting the afterlife evidence. ...
Don't you have the courage to investigate the evidence which
fundamentally tells you that you are wrong in your beliefs?
Dawkins: Yes, I do have
Victor: Or perhaps you are too much of
an intellectual coward to face the consequences of an afterlife
Dawkins: No I'm not a coward ...
Victor: But you have chosen not to investigate
something which is fundamentally inconsistent with your
own deeply entrenched cherished BELIEFS - why not?
Victor: Tell us Professor
Dawkins, do you agree with Professor Einstein that everything
Dawkins: Yes, of course
Victor: Is it your opinion that all other
scientists agree that everything is energy?
Dawkins: Yes ... the scientists I know
would agree with that ... all is energy ...
Victor: Everything .... I mean everything
is energy ..
Dawkins:... Yes ... yes ...
Victor: Do you agree with other scientists
that consciousness is energy?
Dawkins:(Hesitates) ... Yes there are some
scientists who argue like that ... but there are others
who are not sure ....
Victor: You would agree that if consciousness
is energy, then on the face of it we humans - because of
the Law of Conservation of energy - the energy in our consciousness
cannot be destroyed and continues to exist after the material
Dawkins: .... (Hesitates) ... If consciousness
is energy - and now I say I don't accept that the moment
- then yes, our consciousness continues after death ...
Victor: Most of the scientists
I mentioned earlier would agree - those who are still with
us - that consciousness is energy - but you insist you don't.
Dawkins: When there is
scientific evidence for that I will have to accept it.
Victor: Have you come across
where in materializations conducted by scientist Sir William
Crookes - those who materialize confirm that consciousness
Dawkins: No I have not come across that
Victor: So you have not studied the greatest
discover in human history about consciousness being confirmed
Dawkins: No, I have not.
Victor: Did you get an attorney - someone
who is an expert in the admissibility of evidence to analyze
the afterlife evidence?
Dawkins: No, I did not
the time when you said that answering a question about whether
you would tell a child about God when you were on ABC television
with Cardinal George Spell in Sydney? You were the one who
said that you would tell that child to seek the EVIDENCE
to decide for herself ... So why is it you do NOT do yourself
what you tell others to do? Is that not that a demonstration
of hypocrisy pushed to its extreme showing you are deeply
entrenched in negative anti-afterlife prejudice?
Dawkins: .... (Quiet) .....
VICTOR'S SUMMING UP TO THE JURY
”Members of the jury … accordingly, I say that
this Professor Dawkins by his own admission, failed
to investigate the afterlife. He failed to show where, when,
how and why the scientific evidence for the afterlife cannot
be right. He conceded he knows absolutely nothing about
the afterlife. He conceded he is totally ignorant about
the afterlife. He conceded he has never ever read anything
about the afterlife. He conceded he did not do what other
scientists who investigated the afterlife have done. He
conceded he makes mistakes and could be wrong about the
afterlife. He conceded he made negative decisions about
the afterlife WITHOUT first investigating it.
This professor failed to realize that outside
his area of specialization in biology, he has NO authority
at all to speak, to insult, to denigrate those who accept
the afterlife – especially, those scientists who bothered
to investigated the afterlife BEFORE they came to any conclusions
about the afterlife.
Yet this professor goes crusading from country
to country, from State to State, from bookshop to bookshop
telling everyone there is no afterlife.
Using his negative deeply entrenched negative
prejudices, he is misleading the public! He is misinforming
the public! He is using his position as a Professor, as
an author, as an an academic to persuade people to his cause
he knows he cannot prove. Dawkins is leading them astray!
He is doing a great deal of harm to the public about the
greatest event in the history of the human being on earth
- the crossing over. Especially when OTHER brilliant scientists
- some of them more intelligent and more objective than
he is - investigated and confirmed the existence of the
afterlife warning the world that the afterlife has huge
This Professor Richard Dawkins has NO AUTHORITY to make
any comments about the afterlife - and he speaks about the
afterlife without substance, without understanding, without
scholastic evidentiary background about the afterlife.
Is this Dawkins then cheating the public?
Is he being maliciously unfair, unreasonable, unjust? Does
he not show he does not have the competence, the skills
and the ability to perceive the afterlife evidence with
true, scientific equanimity?
The HONEST way for Dawkins, if he does not want to believe
in the afterlife, is to state that he is an agnostic until
he investigates the evidence.
These days the afterlife is not a matter of BELIEF - and
I said nothing about BELIEF in the afterlife, I said nothing
about religion and I said nothing about the Church's view
of the afterlife. The afterlife is a matter of admissible
repeatable empirical evidence. A lawyer has presented the
evidence for the afterlife and no Professor, no academic,
no materialist, no closed minded skeptic has been able to
rebut the evidence. Now does this not raise some curiosity
in this Professor Dawkins that the evidence just might be
I know in your minds you are also curious
about one very important, critical and vital thing, something
that would have clarified the problem for your consideration
of the verdict: the question is - why did this Professor
Dawkins NOT investigate the evidence for the afterlife?
Relevant reasonable questions would be: Is it possible
that by conceding that there is an afterlife he is going
to lose his 'star' status - and become a nothing, a nobody
- losing all the prestige and lose all media attention -
and lose sales of his books? Would he lose money - and be
reduced from a rooster to a feather duster?
In this particular case, I can’t see
you having any other alternative but to find him liable
for gross negligence in not accepting the afterlife, for
most unethical conduct in misleading people and for spreading
darkness around the world - and for making himself look
really professionally ridiculous – something that
history will never forget - coming to conclusions before
investigating the evidence.
Yes, I urge all of you on the basis of the
clear and definitive evidence presented to you to find him
LIABLE for his negligence - for not investigating the afterlife.”
(Any lawyer who would like to defend
Professor Richard Dawkins is free to contact me to submit
his defence of the Professor. I’d be more than happy
to publish any defence, rebutting the issues I raised -
Return to Articles