You could probably look at them differently if you tried. I wouldn't make a strong argument as I wasn't leaning strongly on a precise distinction in the moment, but to at least connote more maturity and activity and knowledge building in how, while why appears more conceptual, distant, more philosophical, idea-driven, than scientific. It may be viewed as similar to asking why there is something rather than nothing. Why we experience some matter rather than other matter seems more appropriate 'considering first person experience as granted, but the presence of others as well that presumably could have been the case'. Why we experience a specific location and time in reality seems more appropriate than how: we have accepted it has occurred and reoccurred virtually countless times, but we are but one case. This is perhaps two reasons I can see for using a distinction, but that doesn't mean I would pursue it or stand by it in a serious inquiry or exposition.

> It may be viewed as similar to asking why there is something rather than nothing.

The answer to that is a description how something happened to exist. A possible difference is that "how" asks for a full description, while "why" asks for an abbreviated description only of the relevant part, the rest assumed to be irrelevant. Experience of time a good example, because it happens differently depending on nature of time, so you can't assume nature of time to be irrelevant to the question.