History of Order: From Religion to Science

nasiraijaz January 12, 2026

0 0 6 minutes read

The history of order is not a linear march toward absolute truth but a continuous process of reinterpretation.

Religion and science are not enemies; they are successive responses to the same human need for meaning and stability. Each addressed the limits of knowledge of its time.
The history of order teaches us that the human struggle is not between religion and science, but against meaninglessness

Noor Muhammad Marri Advocate | Islamabad

Human history is not merely a record of events; it is a continuous search for order. From the earliest moments of conscious thought, human beings have attempted to understand the universe, society, and their own existence through systems of meaning and structure. In its earliest form, this order was articulated through religion, where the universe was explained as divine creation, society was governed by sacred commandments, and morality was rooted in revelation. Over time, this religious order gradually transformed into social and political institutions, and in the modern age, into scientific explanations based on reason, observation, and empirical laws.

This essay proceeds from the central premise that no form of order—religious or scientific—exists outside time, intellectual capacity, and historical context. Religions addressed human beings in the language they could understand at a given stage of intellectual development. When superstition and myth dominated human consciousness, religious narratives employed symbols, miracles, and supernatural forces. As human understanding expanded, the language of order changed accordingly. The movement from religion to science, therefore, is not a rejection of order but a historical reconfiguration of it. Order did not disappear; it evolved with time.

From the earliest civilizations, human beings were confronted with an unpredictable and often hostile world. Natural disasters, disease, famine, and death shaped a worldview in which causality was poorly understood and fear was a constant companion. In such conditions, the human mind sought stability through explanation. Religion emerged as a comprehensive system that provided cosmology, morality, and social discipline in a single framework. The universe was understood as purposeful, governed by divine will, and human suffering was given meaning through supernatural logic. This was not irrationality but a rational response within the limits of available knowledge.

Religious order functioned as the earliest form of social regulation. It legitimized authority, defined acceptable behavior, and established moral hierarchies. Kings ruled by divine sanction, laws were framed as sacred commandments, and social obedience was reinforced through fear of divine punishment and hope of reward. This system was effective precisely because it corresponded to the intellectual level of the people. When natural laws were unknown, miracles were credible explanations. When scientific reasoning was absent, divine intention offered coherence.

Read: History of science, religion and the ‘big picture’

It is essential to understand that religion did not invent superstition; it spoke within it. Superstition was not a deviation from reason but the dominant form of explanation available at the time. Religious language—angels, demons, spirits, divine wrath—mirrored the cognitive universe of its audience. To judge these explanations by modern standards of rationality is to commit a historical error. Order, by its very nature, must be intelligible to those who live under it.

This historical reality is visible even in societies that had reached significant levels of intellectual and artistic sophistication. As late as the sixteenth century, William Shakespeare constructed the moral and political universe of Hamlet around the presence of a ghost. The ghost of King Hamlet is not symbolic or psychological; it is an objective moral authority demanding justice. This reflects a period in which supernatural causality remained an accepted explanation of reality. The boundary between rational and supernatural order had not yet fully emerged.

The gradual shift from religious to rational explanations of order is best understood through Max Weber’s concept of the “disenchantment of the world.” Weber argued that early societies interpreted reality through magical and religious frameworks, while modern societies increasingly rely on rational-legal systems. This transformation did not abolish order; it altered its form. What was once explained through divine will came to be understood through law, bureaucracy, and scientific reasoning. Authority shifted from priests and prophets to administrators and experts.

Weber’s typology of authority—traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational—demonstrates how order is historically constructed. Charismatic authority often emerges during periods of crisis, offering revolutionary meaning and direction. Over time, this charisma becomes institutionalized, giving rise to traditions and bureaucracies. Religious movements, once dynamic and transformative, solidify into structured systems. This process confirms that even sacred orders are subject to time and institutional necessity.

Karl Marx approached the question of order from a materialist perspective, yet his conclusions reinforce the same historical logic. For Marx, social and political orders are rooted in economic relations. Religion, law, and morality form part of the ideological superstructure that reflects material conditions. When human beings lacked control over nature and production, supernatural explanations provided psychological comfort and social stability. As productive forces advanced and scientific knowledge expanded, religious explanations lost their central role.

Marx did not deny the historical function of religion; he contextualized it. Religion was meaningful within a world of uncertainty and exploitation. Its decline was not the result of moral failure but of historical transformation. As material conditions changed, the form of order changed with them. This again affirms that order is not eternal; it is responsive to time.

Émile Durkheim further deepened this understanding by emphasizing the social function of religion. For Durkheim, religion was not primarily about gods but about society itself. Religious symbols represented collective values, and rituals reinforced social cohesion. What a society declared sacred reflected what it valued most at a given moment in history. As societies evolved, their sacred symbols evolved as well. When moral frameworks failed to adapt to changing conditions, societies experienced anomie—a breakdown of social order.

Durkheim’s analysis shows that order must align with collective consciousness to remain effective. When intellectual development outpaces moral adaptation, disorder emerges. Religious decline, therefore, is not simply loss of belief but a symptom of temporal mismatch between social reality and inherited systems of meaning.

Centuries earlier, Ibn Khaldun articulated a remarkably advanced theory of historical order. His concept of ʿasabiyyah explained how social cohesion gives rise to political and religious authority. Strong solidarity enables societies to establish order, while luxury, complacency, and intellectual shifts weaken it. For Ibn Khaldun, no religious or political system could escape this historical cycle. Geography, economic activity, and intellectual habits determined the lifespan of civilizations.

Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical view of history leaves no room for timeless order. Religious authority is effective only when it resonates with the social and intellectual conditions of its time. Once those conditions change, the order collapses, regardless of its sacred claims.

The emergence of science did not eliminate the need for order; it provided a new language for it. Scientific order replaced supernatural causality with natural laws, experimentation, and predictive models. Where religion offered certainty through faith, science offered provisional truth through evidence. This transition was not abrupt but gradual, marked by conflict, resistance, and adaptation. Even science remains bound by time, subject to revision and replacement.

Thus, the history of order is not a linear march toward absolute truth but a continuous process of reinterpretation. Religion and science are not enemies; they are successive responses to the same human need for meaning and stability. Each addressed the limits of knowledge of its time.

The historical journey from religious to scientific order reveals a consistent pattern: humanity has never accepted chaos as a final condition. In every age, humans have constructed systems of order that reflected their intellectual limits, material conditions, and social needs. Religious order was effective when supernatural explanations provided coherence in an uncertain world; scientific order gained dominance when reason and empirical knowledge offered more reliable tools of understanding. The relationship between religion and science, therefore, is not one of absolute opposition but of historical succession.

The works of Weber, Marx, Durkheim, and Ibn Khaldun collectively affirm that order is always temporal. No religious system remained static, just as no scientific framework can claim finality. Time continuously tests every structure of meaning, reshaping or replacing it according to new conditions. The critical question, therefore, is not which order is eternally true, but which order was intelligible and functional for its time.

Ultimately, the history of order teaches us that the human struggle is not between religion and science, but against meaninglessness. Any system—religious, scientific, or social—that provides meaning, stability, and coherence remains valid within its historical moment. When it fails to do so, it is left behind by history. Order, in all its forms, has always been bound by time, and time remains the final authority over all human constructions.