To be asked what must necessarily be a large and vague question about "religion", made more difficult by further questions about its future in the twenty-first century, questions which are comparably difficult to answer confidently because the future is unknown and is likely to be as complex and rapidly changing as the present, puts one in a very difficult position. It is certainly not one for which a lifetime's study of religion, nearly as long as the twentieth century, concentrated on one particular period and area, that of the long period which brought the religious domination of what afterwards became "Europe" to pass from "paganism" to institutional Christianity, has done much, though it has done something, to prepare one. However, I will do my best. I will give my own statement of what I have come to consider "religion" to be. Then I will try to say a few words about forms of religion which are much less familiar to us, but perhaps more important for the future of religion in the world considered as a whole. Then I will try to say something more about the forms of religion with which we may be more familiar, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which form a group with a distinctive characteristic.

How I see "religion" as a whole is this. My basic assumptions are: 1. in spite of very much that can be said on the other side, this world in which we live is good; 2. it originates from an ultimate Good, or God, which is beyond our understanding. These assumptions can and have been separated, and there are transitional stages. A minority of humans is driven to seek the Good through its images, the many good and beautiful things in this world. These affect a number of others, and draw them some way after them. A religious person, or body of persons, may always be a great mixture of love and seeking after the Good and the selfishness, lust, greed, and hatred which are prevalent among humans. But only if they stay close to the heart of religion, which is love of the Good, the Giver of all we have and are, and express it in gratitude, and something which can only be called worship, private or public, Eucharistia, the worship of gratitude, can one really talk about "religion".

The first thing to remember about the religions and religious persons about whom we know little because they are not of our tradition is that they occupy a great deal of space in the world, and it is on their survival and comparative flourishing, not only on ours, that the future of religion in the world will depend. They divide fairly naturally into the great "higher" religions which have their origins mostly in India, including Buddhism, and the "primitive" religions of other human beings, and of the great lands which came to be dominated by the "higher" religions, which have always been most hospitable towards them. These religions have plenty of vitality, and are mostly free from the legitimate objections to "religion" which are strong against those with which we are more familiar. The influence of the "primitive" religions seems to be, unexpectedly, somewhat increasing, at least in their way of thinking about the one life of the whole created world. And there is no doubt that the influence of Buddhism, in more authentic forms than we have known, is increasing in the West.

The characteristic which the religions which we know best, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, or Mohammedanism, have in common, derived from Judaism, is the conviction that there is only one true religion, which the God who is the Good has revealed to one particular group, the People of God, the Chosen People. Centuries of historical study have shown to many people, including many believers in those ways of religion, especially Christianity, who do not find such a conviction necessary to their most cherished beliefs, that this exclusivism or particularism is of all things most improbable, and that those who make such a claim should be regarded with great suspicion. Further, all religions and religious groups have been liable to be taken over by "godly princes", powerful and influential persons who sometimes believe sincerely in the religions they profess, but are really mainly concerned with their own wealth, power, and influence. And it is the union of exclusivism, with its ample power of producing hatred among those who profess differing versions of the same belief, with the often crushing, always infuriating power of the "godly princes", which has produced nearly all the reasons why religion is disliked, despised, or hated. Here we find why in the past there were large assemblies of religious people who certainly had not gone to church, mosque, or synagogue to be stimulated to love and gratitude to God. Here we see why so many leaders of religious assemblies were, and often still are, much concerned with things with which, as religious persons, they have no business: property, wealth, power, and influence. We can understand why the exclusive religions brought so much hatred into the world, when they came to show that God was the Good and loved all things which he had created. Now that exclusivism seems to be inevitably dying, and "godly princes" have vanished, at least from the formerly Christian world, where powerful and influential people seem to be mostly on the anti-religious side (they will probably persist rather longer in the vast and varied Mohammedan world), there is at least a chance for "religion" to show its real nature, as love and aspiration to our good creator. And this will be a good thing, for there may be more beauty waking the response of love in the world, and those who love and desire the Good will behave better to other humans, and all the other, created species.

A. Hilary Armstrong, who passed away soon after writing this, was Professor Emeritus of Classics at Dalhousie University and the editor and translator of the Loeb edition of Plotinus.