How Much Should or Can Science Impact Theological Formulations?

There have been many developments in the field of science and religion over past few decades. One such development is referred to as ‘theology nature’ (ToN), which activity building or revising theological frameworks light contemporary scientific developments, e.g., evolution, chaos theory, quantum mechanics. Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, all whom are Christian thinkers, most well-known advocates this kind thinking. However, discourse has not examined from an Islamic perspective. Given gap, article, we view strand thinking Ashʿarī school thought that part Sunnī kalām tradition. We first review how ToN manifests works thinkers mentioned earlier. Following this, highlight essential principles Ashʿarism relevant God, His interaction with created world, science. These then compared ideas said thinkers. Two conclusions reached. First, demonstrate atomism, generally understood a long-held position tradition, should be held but rather philosophical one. Second, important distinction made between science-informed theology (SIT) contingency-informed (CIT). For Ashʿarīs, CIT sufficient for understanding they would find SIT displayed problematic. The motivation methodology localising modifying God’s nature attributes fit day seen theologically very costly form scientism.