I'm sure you're right that Peterson cherry picks what he takes from Jung. But my point is that he's Jungian about religion in the basic sense that he reduces religion to a psychological expression in a way that makes religion equivalent to art. And my point is that atheists can switch to criticizing religion on those grounds, rather than treating theistic statements as having only literal meanings.

But this is a point about labels. If you don't think Peterson is Jungian enough, fine. He's still doing what I'm saying he's doing. It's just that you wouldn't think that that reductive move is especially Jungian.