CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PROFESSOR RICHARD DAWKINS
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?
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' decision regarding the admissibility
Dawkins: No, no, I'm not an attorney ....
Victor: Would it be correct to say that some scientists
do not agree with you?
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 ...
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, they ought not make conclusions
about anything unless they have first done the 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 has not done any research
about the matter at all?
Dawkins: I'd have some 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): 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 ...
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 ...
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 postive. 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 ...
Victor: Too busy to search for the truth?
Dawkins: (looking uncomfortable): Not really ...
You are on record for saying without having nvestigated
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: 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, accepted the evidence
that on death the physical brain is destroyed, but the mind
survives physical death?
Dawkins: No, I don't accept that ...
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?
Dawkins): What scientists you ask? Professor, have you read
the the afterlife works by ANY of these empirical afterlife
investigators? (Victor reads from his notes)
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 afterlife investigators?
No I have not ...
Victor: Have you investigated ANY scientist's positive conclusions
about the afterlife?
Dawkins: I've read a lot of scientists who criticized the
Victor: That's NOT what I asked you. Answer the question:
have you investigated ANY of the scientists who reached
positive conclusions about the afterlife? If not why not?
Dawkins: The answer is no 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
Dawkins: .... (keeps quiet) ...
Victor: As a professor, as an atheist, as an anti-afterlife
crusader, don't you have the intellect, the motivation and
the duty to publish your reasons for disagreeing with the
evidence for the afterlife other scientists accepted?
Dawkins: I don't see it that way ....
Victor: Aren't you curious?
Dawkins: No ...
Victor: You understand that empirical
study of the afterlife has absolutely nothing to do with
religious beliefs ... do you understand that distinction?
Dawkins: I'm beginning to...
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: No, I have not ...
Victor: The other side of the coin is that all the empirically
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
Dawkins: I don't want to answer that question because there
is no afterlife ....
Victor: Objection your honor, the Professor - and nobody
else in history ... has proven that this evidence for the
afterlife is not valid...
His Honor: Yes yes, I allow that objection ... Mr Dawkins
... just answer the question put to you by Mr Zammit ...
Victor: Professor Dawkins, since you failed to show where
when how and why the existing evidence for the afterlife
is not valid, it procedurally follows that in fact the evidence
CAN be valid ... right?
Dawkins: I find it hard to answer that question ...
His Honor: Procedurally Mr Dawkins, you must answer that
Dawkins: (still hesitating)
Victor: For the last time Professor, if you have NOT INVESTIGATED
THE AFTERLIFE, if you have NOT shown that existing evidence
for the afterlife is not valid ... then theoretically the
evidence for the afterlife COULD BE VALID because you have
NO AUTHORITY to say it is not. Right? - ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Dawkins: yes, yes, theoretically
the evidence for the afterlife could be valid ...
Victor: All right, I put it to you in another way. Before
you did say you do make mistakes and admitted you are NOT
a know-all ...
Now, is it POSSIBLE that you are mistaken about the afterlife
since you admit you have NOT investigated the evidence?
Dawkins: I suppose I have to answer yes ... I can be mistaken
but I need evidence ...
Victor: Why did you not investigate the evidence yourself
on something as hugely important as the afterlife? After
all we are all destined to go there?
Dawkins: I don't believe in it...
Victor: Don't you have the courage
Dawkins: Yes, I do have courage
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: Did you get an attorney - someone who is an expert
in the admissibility of evidence - to do the investigating
on your behalf?
Dawkins: No, I did not ...
Victor: Remember 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 investigating
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. 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 investigated
and confirmed the existence of the afterlife warning the
world that the afterlife has huge consequences.
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 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 absolutely valid?
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
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.
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
(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