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.
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.
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 claim ...
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 that too.
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 not make conclusions
about anything unless the scientist first did the particular
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
Dawkins: I'd have some very harsh words ...
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
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 mistakes
Victor: You say you are an atheist, but at least once you
referred yourself as an agnostic. Which is correct - atheist
Dawkins: I suppose you can say I am an atheist ...
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 critcally important
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
Victor: So your belief that the brain and the mind are the
same is a specualitive 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 death?
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 about?
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 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, 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 say that
again, 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 it.
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 with that .... 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 ...
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?
Dawkins: .... (Hesitates) ... If consciousness
is energy - and now I say I don't accept that the moment
- then yes, our consciosness continues...
Victor: Most of the scientists
I menioned 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 consciosness
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 analyse
the afterlife evidence?
Dawkins: No, I did not
answering a question about whether you would tell a child
about God when you were on ABC television with Cardinal
George Pell 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?
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