This chapter presents an in-depth comparative analysis of the most significant conceptualizations of the position of the scholar in the study of religion. Methodological naturalism, which has been analysed in detail in several earlier chapters, is now assessed in comparison to methodological agnosticism, neutrality and the dialogical position. It will be shown how and why methodological naturalism cannot claim superior justifiability in comparison to these alternatives. But also, none of the alternatives can claim to avoid their own distinctive problems either. Overall, this necessitates the conclusion that there is no position available for the study of religion that is more justifiable, preferable and applicable than all its alternatives in general. It will be shown how cognitive and ecological research on religion is possible from non-naturalistic premises as well. Therefore, in conclusion it will be argued that instead of insisting on a universal position scholars of religion ought to look towards combining different positions to better account for the specifics of different research methodologies or/and think of positions as regulative ideals rather than as procedural practices.