A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife


<< Return to Articles



World renowned atheist Professor Richard Dawkins is on record for stating there is no God and there is no afterlife.

Clearly, 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.

(The 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).

Victor: For the purpose of the record Professor, you have been described as a British ethnologist, evolutionary biologist and author. That sums it up basically?

Dawkins: Yes, it does ...

You are the author of some very well known books to do with evolution and God ... is that right?

Yes, that's right.

Victor: 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?

Dawkins: (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?

Dawkins: 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?

Dawkins: 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 ...?

Victor: You are not qualified in physics?

Dawkins: 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!

Victor: 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?

Dawkins: Yes, I suppose so.

Victor: More than that Professor, there are some scientists who violently disagree with you...?

Dawkins: Possibly...

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: 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?

Dawkins: I'd say the scientists who specialize in one specific area would have a distinct advantage over those scientists who didn't...

Victor: In other words, no scientist ought to make conclusions about anything unless the scientist first did the particular research ..

Dawkins: Exactly!

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?

Dawkins: ... 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?

Dawkins: No, I'm not ...

Victor: Then you do agree there are people in the world who are smarter than you are ...

Dawkins: Perhaps in that context they are smarter yes ...

His Honor (looking at Victor): Mr Zammit, where is this taking us?

Victor: This a CREDIBILITY issue your Honor. This is also about AUTHORITY- and will become clear in a little while ...

His 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 or agnostic?

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!

Victor: 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 ...

Victor: 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 mind-brain duality?

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 death?

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 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 to:

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 not ...

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 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: 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 afterlife?

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 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?

Dawkins: (Quiet)

Victor: Tell us Professor Dawkins, do you agree with Professor Einstein that everything is energy?

Dawkins: Yes, of course I do.

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 body dies?

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. Right?

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 is energy?

Dawkins: No I have not come across that information.

Victor: So you have not studied the greatest discover in human history about consciousness being confirmed in materializations?

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 ...

Victor: Remember 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) .....


”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 consequences.

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 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 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

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