Explanation and interpretation in the comparative study of religion

According to Kuhn (1970), one of the real stumbling blocks in the advancement of a science is the question of adequate and legitimate theorizing when a science passes from one phase, or paradigm, to another. The study of religion now seems to have gone from the formative, descriptive 'what?' phase to the theoretically more interesting 'how?' phase-the one that focuses on relations between religion and other matters-typically formulated in conference titles such as 'religion and gender', 'religion and violence' etc. Lately, in the study of religion 'why?' phase and 'why?' issues that are characteristic of 'mature' sciences have surfaced with renewed intensity. 'Why?' questions are typically explanatory in the more causal sense and explain the occurrence and evolution of the object of study. In the study of religion this is now evident especially in the cognitive approaches. There are, however, other possibilities for explanatory avenues than those most frequently copied from the natural sciences. On the relations between explanation and interpretation I propose a revised stance that is supported by theoretical and philosophical developments that seem to have been overlooked by scholars of religion.