When it comes to discussing the role that religion plays in the 21 st century, one can hardly avoid noticing the process of some world’s monotheistic religions losing their former vitality; whereas, other religions concerned with the promotion of a belief in the existence of omnipotent God, appearing to become increasingly influential. The validity of this suggestion can be well illustrated in regards to the tendency of Islam to grow ever more ‘fundamentalist,’ on the one hand, and the tendency of Christianity to become a progressively ‘secularized’ religion, on the other. It goes without saying, of course, that one can hardly expect to be able to provide a sound explanation to this when tackling the subject matter within the conceptual framework of theology. Instead, we should assess the essence of the phenomenon in question through the conceptual lenses of sociology – only then will we be able to gain analytical insight into what can be considered the dialectical triggers of the earlier mentioned process. This explains my rationale in referring to Ronald Johnstone’s 2007 book Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion , as such that contains scientifically backed answers as to what should be considered the religion’s actual roots. In particular, I find the book’s Chapter 1, especially enlightening. This is because, apart from exposing religion, as such that reflects the specifics of the affiliated people’s psychological phenotype; it endows readers with the awareness that religions derive out of people’s tendency to profess essentially ‘magical’ worldviews, which in turn may be well regarded as the measure of their evolutionary underdevelopment. In the paper’s following sub-chapter, I will elaborate on the legitimacy of this suggestion at length. One of the main reasons why I consider the book’s Chapter 1, as being the most important one is that it prompts readers to come to terms with the fact that religion is essentially the extrapolation of their collectively defined spiritual longings. As Johnstone pointed out: “Religion is, first of all, a group phenomenon… We see places of worship all around us and have clear mental pictures of groups of people assembling together in prayer” (8). What it means is that, in order for people to be willing to affiliate themselves with a particular religion, they must be psychologically attuned with the manner in which this religion prescribes believers to deal with the challenges of life. It is needless to mention, of course, that this exposes the sheer fallaciousness of the assumption that one’s religious anxieties reflect the workings of the concerned individual’s free will. Figuratively speaking, it is not believers who choose their religion, but rather a religion that chooses its believers. The full soundness of this statement appears self-evident once we take into consideration the fact that, despite having the same theological roots, the religions of Christianity and Islam provide their affiliates with rather unrelated ‘glimpses’ into what it would be like living in heaven. For example, the Christian conceptualization of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ presupposes that, after having been selected to be dispatched there, true believers will not have anything else to do but to concern themselves with praising God 24/7 for eternity. Muslims, on the other hand, have very