Well, first of all the prudence you're talking about here expresses the pre-Christian status quo in Judaism. That understanding of human fallibility, and the lack of any emphasis on "original sin, is why Jews didn't worry so much about Heaven or Hell or divine judgment. They assumed God understood what was fair to ask of mortal beings who are trying their best.

But that's not what Jesus was about, at least not as I read the canonical gospels. That's the difference between Judaism and early Christianity, you see, the Axial Age, mystical absolutism of Jesus's fiery message and extreme self-sacrifice. Jesus wanted to elevate the standards above what both Jews and pagans would have expected, because Jesus was speaking ecstatically from peak states of consciousness.

Maybe it was all hyperbole and allegory, and he didn't mean any of it literally. But the message that comes across from the New Testament is that there's no middle ground, as far as God's concerned, and divine judgment is imminent. You're either following God's lofty expectations or you're not, so it's Heaven or Hell. No Limbo and no exceptions. And failing that, you're either with Jesus or you're not.

As to the point I was making in the article, it's just that Peterson's trying to discredit philosophy (due to his scientism) and to elevate his field of psychology, by reducing the ontological question of atheism vs theism to the behavioural one of whether we're living up to certain moral ideals.

Of course we can do our best to live as if God were real, and we can struggle with doubts and have certain moments of clarifying faith. That doesn't impact the distinction between propositional knowledge and moral behaviour. God is either real or he's not. Thus, atheism is either true or it's false. Peterson's muddying the waters because he doesn't want to answer clearly if doing so will anger some of his audience. That's because Peterson has become something of a demagogue and a cult leader.