A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


The Book 4th edition

<< : Book Index : Next Chapter >>

1. Opening statement

“Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider.”
Sir Francis Bacon

There is undeniable scientific evidence today for the afterlife. I am a former practicing attorney-at-law formally qualified in a number of university disciplines. I am also an open-minded skeptic.

The argument that follows is not just an abstract, theoretical, academic legal argument. As an open-minded investigator, I set out to investigate the existing evidence for survival after death and, with others, to test claims that communication with intelligences from the afterlife is possible.

After many years of serious investigation I have come to the irreversible conclusion that there is a great body of evidence which, taken as a whole, absolutely and without a doubt proves the case for the afterlife. I will not be arguing that the objective evidence has high value as proof. Nor am I suggesting that this evidence be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. I am stating that the evidence taken as a whole constitutes overwhelming and irrefutable proof for the existence of the afterlife.

There have been millions of pages written about psychic phenomena and scientific research into the afterlife. Using my professional background as an attorney and my university training in psychology, history and scientific method, I have very carefully selected aspects of psychic research and afterlife knowledge that would constitute objective evidence. This evidence would be technically admissible in the Supreme Court of the United States, the House of Lords in England, the High Court of Australia and in every civilized legal jurisdiction around the world.

When the objective evidence – modern materializations, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, after-death contacts, voices on tape, psychic laboratory experiments, the best mediums, the cross correspondences, the Scole Experiments, proxy sittings, poltergeists and all of the other evidence contained in this work – is seen collectively, the case for survival after death is absolutely stunning and irrefutable.

The evidence presented in this work also proves the existence of so-called ‘psychic phenomena,’ which are interconnected with the afterlife and can only be explained satisfactorily by survival of the individual soul and personality after death.

In absolute terms the evidence presented in this work will convince the rational and intelligent open-minded skeptic or the genuine searcher about the existence of the afterlife.

Why don’t more people know about the evidence?

For many years there has been hostility towards psychic science in the mainstream media, in universities and in some of the churches. The discoveries of serious scientists working to prove the afterlife have been misreported, distorted and ignored. High profile closed-minded skeptics have been given unfair license by the media to ridicule, cheat and lie, with the result that members of the general public know very little about the great body of scientific research that has been accumulated.

Many people who are genuinely seeking to explore this fascinating area have not been able to access unbiased factual information because they may not have the skills or the time to read and analyze the huge number of technical books and articles available on this subject (see Bibliography). In some societies these books are still simply not available because of formal and informal censorship.

Knowledge which is “subjective” includes all information which cannot be independently substantiated. This includes personal beliefs: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions. Subjective knowledge also includes closed-minded materialist skepticism (modern usage: a strongly held belief that the afterlife does not exist) because in context of the afterlife, no skeptic can use science to objectively prove that closed-minded skepticism is scientific or that nothing exists in the afterlife.

The original meaning of skepticism referred to the critical examination of a phenomenon without accepting or rejecting it. The original meaning of skepticism had nothing to do with completely denying the afterlife or the validity of psychic phenomena.

Like religion, closed-minded skepticism is a personal, subjective belief that is subject to fundamental errors and to complete invalidation. Because a personal subjective religious or skeptical belief does not have the substance of science, any subjective religious or skeptical belief inevitably can be absolutely invalidated.

Objective knowledge – science – is where the same results and the same cause-effect connection can be demonstrated over time and space. Science is regarded as “objective” in that any person who follows the scientific formulas, keeping variables constant, will get the same results. Sometimes I use the word ‘empirical’ instead of ‘science’. ‘Empirical’ relates to the use of scientific method to measure paranormal or afterlife evidence.

The studies of voices on tape (see Chapters 4 and 5) and mediumship have clearly showed this element of repeatability. Investigators working independently in many different countries have been able to duplicate each other’s work.

But not all science is conducted in the laboratory. Within the definition of science there is also the ‘scientific, systematic observation of a phenomenon.’ For example, whilst we accept and believe that thunder and lightening and storms do occur, we cannot duplicate them under laboratory conditions. Case studies, too, are important to the scientific method. As long as there is strict adherence to scientific method, the results of the observations can become scientifically based.

A word of caution

What I have found in many of the meetings about the afterlife is that some people accept much of the information presented, but some want to put emphasis on, or disagree about, reincarnation or astrology, or meditation or prayer or crystals, or even atheism or agnosticism. For the purpose of the record, it is not my intention to try to change anybody’s beliefs or religion. This is not religious crusading. This is not a matter of faith or belief. This is a matter of either acceptance or non-acceptance of the objective, empirical evidence.
You are being given access to some very important objective information about the afterlife, the most important information you will ever come across in your lifetime. But ultimately, given all the information, you the reader will have to decide what you accept or reject. But if you reject the evidence presented in this work, the onus shifts onto you to show and explain objectively why you have rejected the evidence.

In the past, the clergy refused to accept science because it conflicted with the clergy's personal religious beliefs. When Galileo showed the Pope the telescope and told him that it would prove Galileo's view of the universe, the Pope called the telescope “the work of the devil” and refused to look through it. But the clergy had to eventually accept that science prevailed over personal, subjective religious beliefs. It can never be any other way.

You the reader have to take extreme care not to fall into the comfort-zone trap, rejecting objective information just because the objective, scientific information conflicts with your personal, subjective beliefs – be they religious or skeptical.
We need to be aware that once people feel comfortable with a set of beliefs, they do not want to change them even if new, objective and scientific information shows they are completely invalid. Many beliefs become part of the emotional makeup and are hard-wired into the nervous system. These beliefs become very hard to shift. Even if information is scientific, we initially tend to reject it if the information is too advanced – if it challenges our ‘boggle threshold’ by being too far ahead of our existing knowledge, especially if the information is not consistent with our secular or religious beliefs, history, culture, values and tradition.

Beliefs shaped by our environment

We just cannot ignore the fact that where we were born has a huge bearing on what we believe. For example, if we were born in China to-day or in Japan or in some remote village in Africa or in Alaska or in India or in Russia, we would very likely have beliefs different from someone born in North America. For that reason, we have to examine our belief system very closely and not assume that our beliefs are correct simply because it’s what our parents or teachers believed or because they are what we were brought up with.

Repeatedly, we have had to adjust our beliefs and value systems to accommodate scientific marvels, such as man walking on the moon and spectacular space explorations. Similarly, adjustments have to be made to accommodate the empirically based evidence for the existence of psychic phenomena and the afterlife.

<< : Book Index : Next Chapter >>


Home | The Book | Radio FAQs | Articles | Hall of Fame
Appearances | About Victor | Links | Contact

Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit.  All rights reserved.  --  
Web site by happysean