A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

The Book


<< Return to Index


“People have lost faith in orthodox science because orthodox science CANNOT explain what people are experiencing paranormally and spiritually.” Victor Zammit

Professor Richard Dawkins, a high flying self-confessed materialist atheist from Oxford University may be a good theoretical scientist, but from what we saw of him on a recent television show dealing with paranormal/afterlife matters, I would rate him as having very low skills as a critic of the paranormal.

He attracts viewers’ attention with his clichés ‘irrational beliefs’, ‘enemies of reason’, ‘false logic’, ‘critical thinking’ – yet this professor does not apply these terms to his own lack of critical thinking about his own personal beliefs. See for yourselves herein below.

Continuously, he just repeated anti-paranormal/anti-afterlife prejudice and negative propaganda - and carefully cited very weak psychic incidents to delude himself and to mislead, to misinform and to misdirect others.

1. First, this R. Dawkins when referring to the paranormal, is expressing a personal view, NOT a scientific or empirical or objective view, because he can NEVER use science to show that the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. RD is into conjecture and speculation. He’s into subjectivity and debunking. He’s into justification for his own personal beliefs - not in search for the truth.

2. Further, because he is a self-confessed materialist atheist and has been actively anti-paranormal, it follows that he does not and cannot perceive empirical evidence for the paranormal/afterlife with true empirical equanimity. He showed he’s deeply negatively prejudiced, and that is a huge problem for someone who keeps on reminding the viewers he is a ‘scientist’ – rather arrogantly implying he knows more than the paranormal empirical experts and the viewer about the paranormal.

In fact this Dawkins believes the paranormal and the afterlife do not exist. Professional experience tells me that in a courtroom situation under cross-examination that makes him a ‘believer’ in scientism. That makes his argument SUBJECTIVE - and anything subjective is itself subject to fundamental error and to complete invalidation.

3. There is some misguided and erroneous assumption by this R.D that just because he is qualified in science, he is also an expert in the admissibility of evidence. WRONG! Dawkins is NOT a lawyer and accordingly, he has NO expertise in the admissibility of evidence. He often states and imputes that anything to do with the paranormal/afterlife is a personal belief or ‘superstition’ and therefore we must not accept it. WRONG! He shows he does not make critical distinctions, does not discriminate between the subjective and the objective, between the admissible and inadmissible in afterlife/paranormal evidence.

Skeptical materialist scientists, including RD, ought to rebut the formidable hitherto unrebutted afterlife evidence of the relatively recent SCOLE REPORT – where scientists and other professionals from Europe, UK and the US, including NASA scientists agreed that the paranormal actually happened. Also materialist scientists ought to study the afterlife evidence of my own research (at where hitherto no scientist or skeptical debunker in eight years – not even for the allurement of a huge $1,000,000 cash prize - has been able to show the world that the objective evidence presented is not valid.

The onus procedurally shifts on to these materialist scientists to specifically show WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the presented paranormal evidence ought not be accepted. This has NEVER been done. Materialist scientists appear to not have the courage or the competence or the motivation to deal with this most critical and vital paranormal evidence.

For example, whereas empirical investigators, including myself, confirm that empirical materializations in Sydney (chapter three of my book on the Internet – see above) are empirically valid because of repeatability and objectivity – over eighteen months of weekly investigations, Dawkins buries his head in the sand pretending empirical materializations are not happening – because a priori he would argue illogically, irrationally and speciously that that cannot be true because there is no afterlife! Why? Because this extremely convincing afterlife evidence completely shows how absolutely wrong his beliefs are and inevitably would give him huge anxiety. So, consistent with NLP – Neurolinguistic Programming he goes into DELETIONS and consistent with psychology he goes into DENIAL and rationalizations to avoid COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

Physicists and other open-minded scientists of the ‘new science’ (those who used science to accept the paranormal) – to name just a few - such as Nobel Laureate Professor Brian Josephson, Professor Jessica Utts, Professor Alan Wolf, Dr Harold Puthoff, Professor Russell Targ, Professor Dr Ernst Senkowski, Dr Amit Goswami – Professor John Bockris, Ron Pearson (UK), Professor Archie Roy, Professor Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Claude Swanson Professors of Physics – and also some of the classic scientists such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Crookes, Sir William Barrett et al- ALL conceded after investigating that the paranormal is real – and most of them also conceded that there is an afterlife.

Now this Dawkins, has NOT rebutted any of the scientific evidence of these aforementioned scientists. He knowingly and willfully omitted to rebut the evidence because no scientist can rebut objectivity and repeatability. And because he cannot do that, this negatively prejudiced Dawkins ignores it and deludes himself the evidence does not exist or he hopes it will go away. But it won’t and it never will!

In professional debate, as this is, any evidence which is not rebutted will remain valid. Can we then take Dawkins seriously about his negative attacks on the paranormal/afterlife and his fundamental lack of courage, and blatant omission to rebut the said giants of the ‘new science’? Of course not!

It is accepted at Universities that failing to deal with contrary substantive evidence equals either intellectual laziness or intellectual cowardice – or more likely, the contrary substantive evidence is unrebuttable.

4. “Where a better way to start my investigation than in a New Age fair” stated Dawkins to the viewers. Any serious, professional scientist who wants to investigate the paranormal will NOT go to a psychic fair. The experts will tell you that the really good and gifted psychics do NOT go to psychic fairs! In psychic fairs you get a mixture of reasonable psychics, weak psychics and others who pretend to be psychics. In fact a couple I came across in psychic fairs were quacks!

Professional psi (paranormal) empiricists who have the skills, the capacity and the competence to perceive the paranormal with true empirical equanimity will target the empirically elicited paranormal results to investigate the validity of the paranormal – as that American highly professional investigator Dr Dean Radin did in his very successful book THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE a truly international best seller which has now been translated in to fourteen languages.

Why did not Dawkins try to rebut Dr Dean Radin’s highly acclaimed empirically elicited paranormal results? Why did not Dawkins deal with the plethora of other empirically accepted psi results? Why did not Dawkins deal with the classic objective afterlife evidence of Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir William Crookes which hitherto has not been rebutted? Why did not Dawkins try to debate professional psi empiricists about the paranormal who have the professional empirical afterlife knowledge to effectively deal with the closed minded skeptics such as Dawkins himself – instead of picking on easy-to-bully ‘street psychics’ where one deals with the unknown quantity – not knowing if the psychic is genuine or not.

5. Notwithstanding the objective, empirical psi evidence by the ‘new’ scientists to-day, Dawkins and others like him who strictly adhere to orthodox science just cannot or do not want to investigate or accept any empirical paranormal activities. Why not? First, if the empirically elicited psi evidence is accepted, it will make these materialists totally irrelevant and look rather silly and totally anachronistic. Also, the whole spectrum of reductionist orthodox science would inevitably have to be reviewed – in fact, it would become redundant overnight. The existence of non-physical energy, which a number of physicists accept, explains all paranormal activities. Accordingly, the war between orthodox science and the ‘new’ science is a fierce one – and even Dawkins conceded on television that orthodox science is rapidly losing the war.

Traditional, orthodox science has virtually come to a standstill. Dawkins himself also conceded to the viewers that there is a most serious crisis in orthodox science - that many science departments at universities in the UK (and around the world) are closing down, yet the acceptance of the paranormal is inversely increasing. This is because, I submit, people all over the world are themselves experiencing the paranormal – OBE’s and NDE’s, telepathy, EVP and ITC, communicating with crossed-over loved ones, accurate mediumship from highly gifted mediums and apparitions. Because of the internet, these critical evidentiary paranormal experiences are now being made public on an international level and cannot be censored any more. They have filtered into mainstream media and are rapidly becoming deeply entrenched in the world culture – they’ve become impossible to shift.

Accordingly, people have lost faith in orthodox science because orthodox science CANNOT explain what people are experiencing paranormally and spiritually.

People want answers and explanations now for their paranormal experiences - and many are getting the answers. Mechanistic orthodox reductionist science is useless to them. People tell you it makes a lot of sense to them when a highly gifted medium gives them meaningful and accurate messages from their crossed-over loved ones. They don’t want materialist Dawkins insulting them, stating they are ‘deluding’ themselves, that they are being ‘superstitious’, that they are being silly when they know what they experience is real, is a fact, is happening, is totally convincing, when they see some clear apparition or receive meaningful messages from a crossed-over loved one. As people told me in the past, words to the effect, “I don’t care what science says. I tell you I saw my (dead) mother reaching out to me and nobody can take that away from me …” or “the medium’s messages were miraculously deadly accurate … I’d be foolish to ignore all of them.”

The final word goes to a clairaudient medium who told me about materialist scientists anti-afterlife crusaders, “They’re disseminating darkness on a global level – and surely one day they’ll have to pay the price for that.”

We must never forget, we are on the WINNING side – and nothing, and no one – no materialist, no skeptical debunker, no orthodox scientist on earth is going to change that ever – guaranteed!

Victor Zammit May 2008