This work seeks a theological method that can serve as a guide to articulating a relevant way to engage the science and religion discourse in the Philippine context. It examines the theology of Langdon B. Gilkey, particularly the role of symbols in his theology of culture, to arrive at such a method. The work begins by arguing for the need to articulate a Filipino theology that considers the elements of religiosity, poverty, and science. It argues that neither liberation theology nor current discourse in science and religion adequately engages all three elements. It proceeds to examine Gilkey's theology to uncover how he is able to critically take into account these elements. It describes the two stages of in his theology, namely the prolegomenon and the constructive theology proper. More specifically, it presents the development of Gilkey's thoughts on the relationship of science and religion, which moves his theology of culture into a theology of nature. Through a closer look at his theology of history and his reinterpretation of the symbol of providence, the work explores how Gilkey's focus on science as a cultural force explicitly demonstrates the consequences of science for religion and political life. Following Gilkey's framework, the work then examines the symbol of providence in the Philippine context. By explicating a prolegomenon informed by the concrete situation of the Philippines and the specific attitude of bahala na, the work undertakes a preliminary reinterpretation of the symbol of providence.The work concludes that it is possible to participate in the science and religion discourse in a manner relevant to the Philippines if one begins by engaging science as a cultural force. Once the significance of science for culture is establish, so too is the need to engage science as an epistemology and as a body of knowledge. More specifically, the work suggests that a fruitful area of discourse is one between indigenous religions, contemporary science and the Christian faith around a theology of nature.