yup. in many ways peterson challenges my thinking. this tho the non-religious are religous tho just don't know it is such a tired lame argument. so lame its the essence of chapter to the agnostics in the AA "big book". on a related note i also it seems where he and sam harris diverge is perterson's playing lose and easy with definition of truth... it seems that what peterson is saying is that religious ideas are a certain kind of truth though not truth in a conventional sense. i don't get it. i'm sure it drives sam harris kray