"In a general way I agree with his [Professor Royce's] explanation of the dark problem of evil. Evil cannot be the true meaning and real outcome of the universe; on the contrary, it means the necessary means of the highest good. * * * Our moral and religious nature is just as fundamental and essential as our scientific and rational nature. As science is not simply passionless acquisition of knowledge, but also enthusiasm for truth, so morality is not passionless rules of best conduct, but impassioned love of righteousness. And this last is what we call religion; for religion is morality touched and vivified with noble emotion. Now, the necessary postulate of science, without which scientific activity would be impossible, is a rational order of the universe; and, similarly, the necessary postulate of religion, without such religious activity would be impossible, is a moral order of the universe. As science postulates the final triumph of reason, so religion must postulate the final triumph of righteousness. Science believes in the rational order, or in law, in spite of apparent confusion; she knows that disorder is only apparent, only the result of ignorance; and her mission is, to show this by reducing all appearances, all phenomena, to law. So also religion is right in her unshakable belief in the moral order, in spite of apparent disorder or evil; she knows that evil is only apparent, the result of our ignorance and our weakness; and her mission is, to show this by helping on the triumph of moral order over disorder. We may, if we like,--as many indeed do,--reject the faith in the Infinite Goodness, and thereby paralyze our religious activity; but then, to be consistent, we must also reject the faith in the Infinite Reason, and thereby paralyze our scientific activity. So much for a rational justification of the indestructible faith religion has in the Infinite Righteousness, even in the presence of abounding evil. It is founded on the same ground as our indestructible faith in the reign of law in the natural world, and is just as reasonable. Why is it, then, it may be asked, that every one is willing to admit the postulate of science, while so many doubt that of religion? I answer: partly because of feebleness of our moral life in comparison with our physical life; but mainly because the steady advance of science, with its progressive conquest of chaos, and its extension of the domain of order and law, is a continual verification of the postulate of science, and justification of our faith therein; while, on the contrary, the progress of morality and religion is uncertain and often unrecognized, the increase of righteousness and decrease of evil doubtful and even denied. In the presence of such uncertainty, our faith is often sorely tried. We cry out for some explanation--for some philosophy which shall show us how evil is consistent with the Infinite Goodness. We know it is, for that is a necessary postulate. But--how?"[A]