Despite the many definitions of religion offered over the years, religion as a general concept remains “essentially contested” and characterized by a multiplicity of competing definitions and applications. This, however, has not impeded the proliferation of new religious subcategories (e.g., new age religion, secular religion, civil religion, and cultural religion, among others) that challenge the boundaries of religion as conventionally conceived. This article examines the logics underpinning these conceptual innovations with the objective of enhancing reflexivity and clarifying the processes they aim to elucidate. Critically integrating the writings of Weber and Wittgenstein on definition and classification, I advance a framework based on ideal typification and family resemblance which allows for the intelligibility and analytic utility of unconventional subtypes, even when premised on root conceptions of religion that lack precise boundaries and defining attributes. I show how the logics underlying these subtypes are not limited to specification, but also include looser forms of family resemblance. More generally, my analysis explores conceptual classification and innovation as analytic practices involving the identification and creative interpretation of similarities, affinities, linkages, and other kinds of relationships within the constraints of “language-games” relevant not only to academic debate, but also to more basic and quotidian structures of meaning.

尽管多年来提供了许多宗教定义，但宗教作为一个一般概念仍然“基本上存在争议”，其特点是存在多种相互竞争的定义和应用。然而，这并没有阻止新的宗教子类别（例如，新时代宗教、世俗宗教、公民宗教和文化宗教等）的扩散，它们挑战了传统上所设想的宗教界限。本文研究了支撑这些概念创新的逻辑，目的是增强反思性并阐明它们旨在阐明的过程。批判性地整合了韦伯和维特根斯坦关于定义和分类的著作，我提出了一个基于理想典型化和家庭相似性的框架，该框架允许非常规亚型的可理解性和分析效用，即使以缺乏精确边界和定义属性的宗教根本概念为前提。我展示了这些子类型背后的逻辑如何不仅限于规范，而且还包括更松散的家族相似性形式。更广泛地说，我的分析将概念分类和创新作为一种分析实践，涉及识别和创造性解释相似性，亲和力，联系和其他类型关系的局限性，而这种局限性不仅与学术辩论有关，而且与语言辩论有关。更基本和日常的意义结构。即使以缺乏精确界限和定义属性的宗教根源概念为前提。我展示了这些子类型背后的逻辑如何不仅限于规范，而且还包括更松散的家族相似性形式。更一般地说，我的分析将概念分类和创新探索为分析实践，包括在“语言游戏”的约束下识别和创造性解释相似性、相似性、联系和其他类型的关系，不仅与学术辩论相关，而且与学术辩论相关。更基本和日常的意义结构。即使以宗教的根源概念为前提，这些概念也缺乏精确的界限和定义属性。我展示了这些子类型背后的逻辑如何不仅限于规范，而且还包括更松散的家族相似性形式。更一般地说，我的分析将概念分类和创新探索为分析实践，包括在“语言游戏”的约束下识别和创造性解释相似性、相似性、联系和其他类型的关系，不仅与学术辩论相关，而且与学术辩论相关。更基本和日常的意义结构。