Abstract: This essay revisits and prolongs the debate on religion between Karl Jaspers and Paul Ricoeur. I seek to show that they agree on many basic points and that their differences are best characterized as non-oppositional. Both thinkers reject authoritarian religion and the claim to exclusivity and universality that often accompanies it. In a 1957 critique of Jaspers, Ricoeur defines their positions as salvation versus speculation. In response, I cite texts showing (1) that Jaspers makes room for the kind of religious specificity that Ricoeur affirms and (2) that for Jaspers philosophy's role is to prepare the way for the ultimate experience. Whereas Ricoeur holds that Jaspers both traps himself in negativity and floats in vain poetizing, I contend that a careful reading of Jaspers reveals a movement from fear to leap to serenity. As for Ricoeur, I suggest that his hermeneutics of the originary language of religion, developed over the past four decades, can plausibly be seen as a Jaspersian reading of ciphers.