I was doing some more research into the Maturidis, which is the theology school that the Hanafis follow. Apparently, they believe in a lot of reasonable things, and though it is the school the majority of Muslims follow, I'm surprised that its presence is so obscured in the study of Islam.

For example, Maturidis believe that revelation only confirms what reason already knows

Good and evil, sin and righteousness are knowable through the fitrah, not solely because God declares them

Faith requires intellect, reflection, and the contemplation of divine being and observation, not just blind acceptance

The Divine attributes of God are not literal and have to be understood metaphorically without any degree of anthropomorphism involved

Logic and philosophy are tools that enrich faith, as long as they’re done in the framework of the Quran and Sunnah

Believing in the oneness of God is possible without revelation, but accepting Islam is still mandatory for attaining paradise

Allah creates the possibilities, but humans choose between them. Therefore, whatever good or bad happens in this word will be towards the loss or benefit of the people

Being a Hanafi, I find the Maturidi way of thinking to be the most reasonable. It makes way more sense than what the Atharis or Ash'aris say, but I just don't see a lot of Maturidi aqidah being talked about.

So the reason I'm asking this question is: why is that the case? Being the most popular theological school, it SHOULD be the dominant way of thinking, yet a lot of discourse about Islam is dominated by either the Asharis/Atharis.