The condescension comes out in the Firing Line interview when Peterson's asked directly why he doesn't answer yes or no to the question of whether God exists (at around the 17:30 minute mark, link below). His answer is that it's not something to be reduced to a soundbite. Yet millions of others answer yes or no, including me, and Peterson doesn't know more about philosophy or religion than I do. And I've seen Peterson answer similarly in other interviews.
After he makes his point about the soundbite, the interviewer points out that his lectures are two hours long, and Peterson dodges again, saying that two hours isn't very long when you're dealing with the most important questions that have ever been asked. So that's yet more implicit condescension, because what Peterson is really implying is that only his answers are so profound, they can't be contained even in a two hour lecture or in a series of such lectures.
Because again, lots of folks, including me, don't just answer yes or no; we address many aspects of the question in many articles or books. But Peterson doesn't concede that his answer is found in his series of long lectures. He says the question is too profound to be answered even in that way, again even though lots of others have in fact answered the question to their satisfaction in that way. So Peterson is implicitly saying that he takes the matter more seriously than those other writers and lecturers, including me.
Peterson then says that the complicating factor is that he takes a pragmatic view of belief, according to which belief is shown only in action. So if you believed in God, you'd act a certain way (like a saint or a messiah, presumably). If that's so, and Peterson doesn't act like a saint or a messiah, then he's an atheist by that pragmatic definition. It's simple; it took me just a few sentences to explain it. So this is a dodge for Peterson. It's a red herring to distract from his scientistic condescension.
By the way, his tone is also condescending. As usual, he answers these questions with great, seemingly inexplicable bitterness and resentment.
He goes on to say that you "risk when you reduce" profound questions to easy answers, and he's not willing to do that. But that's another red herring since you're free to say that the short answer is no, but the long answer is maybe, or something like that. And again, Peterson's implying that the risk is greater for him (because of his huge audience) than it is for others. What escapes Peterson's understanding is that there's a risk also in dodging questions, in hiding from the answers, and that that risk, too, is greater for him because of the size of his audience.
Later on Peterson admits that he's only working the answers out for himself, and that while he thinks everyone has a divine spark in them, he "dare not" speak about the ultimate metaphysical reality because he "doesn't know."
So if the issue for you is truthfulness, Peterson's answer to the yes or no question would simply be, "I don't know. I'm still investigating the matter and making up my mind. And the reason I don't know is because I'm a psychologist, not an expert on philosophy or religion."
But Peterson doesn't answer with that truthfulness, at least not right away, because he was taught implicitly to be scientistic, to be dismissive of the humanities and to presume that anyone with scientific training can easily wade through the humanities and soak up everything there is to know in those fields. He dodges the question because he doesn't want to admit that his scientistic arrogance is baseless, because he's proud of the authority he thinks he has as a psychologist and as a therapist.
In short, his thinking on religion and philosophy is muddled because he's a dilettante, and that's what he should be admitting if he were truthful.
