And yet at the same time he says that to '_attempt to upset morality_' by the help of the physical sciences is about as rational or as possible as to '_attempt to upset Euclid by the help of the Rig Veda_.' Now on Professor Huxley's principles, this last sentence, though it sounds very weighty, is, if so ungracious a word may be allowed me, nothing short of nonsense.

It would be the lowest depth of immorality, he says, to believe in God, when we see that there is no physical evidence to justify the belief.

And physical science in this way he admits--he indeed proclaims--has upset religion.

How then has physical science in the same way failed to upset morality?
The foundation of morality, he says, is the belief that truth for its own sake is sacred.

But what proof can he discover of this sacredness?
Does any positive method of experience or observation so much as tend to suggest it?
We have already seen that it does not.