In his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard, writing as Johannes Climacus, famously distinguishes two kinds of religiousness, kind A and kind B. He claims that, even though kind A is basic to kind B, including as represented in Christian religious commitment, kind A both has God ‘in its ground’ and ‘can be present in paganism’ that is atheist or agnostic. This apparent conflict calls for a resolution, if kind A is to be coherent. This article offers a new resolution with a familiar distinction between God de re and God de dicto, even though interpreters have overlooked the importance of this distinction for understanding Kierkegaard. In addition, the article contends that this distinction is supportable from Kierkegaard's own writings, even though he himself did not draw it explicitly. The article also explains the importance of the distinction for understanding Kierkegaard on religious diversity in intellectual content. It proposes that it enables Kierkegaard to offer a compelling position on such diversity, given his understanding of God's perfectly good character and activity.

克尔凯郭尔（Joernes Climacus）在他的《结论不科学的后记》中，著名地区分了两种宗教，即A类和B类宗教。他声称，尽管A类是B类的基础，包括基督教信仰中所代表的A类。两者都有上帝“在其地上”和“可以存在于无神论者中”，这是无神论者或不可知论者。如果要使A类保持连贯性，那么这种明显的冲突就需要解决。本文提供了一个新的决议与神之间的熟悉区别去重和神德绝对判断，即使口译员忽略了这种区分对理解克尔凯郭尔的重要性。此外，该文章认为，即使基尔凯郭尔本人并未明确画出这一区别，他的支持也可以得到支持。文章还解释了区分知识分子对知识分子宗教多样性的理解的重要性。它提出，考虑到他对上帝完美的品格和行为的理解，它使基尔凯郭尔能够在这种多样性上提供令人信服的立场。