Ehrman:
>active college professor in the american south
>has written books for popular audiences, serious scholarly work meant for academics, as well as college textbooks
>discusses materials from his books in interviews
>despite being an atheist in a christian domianted field, he is personal friends with many christian writers, doesn't shy away from his views but maintains respect and admiration for christianity
>clearly denotes what is scholarly consensus and what is his personal opinion, both in writing and in interviews
>is able to maintain sizable following from both chrisitans, atheists and others who just happen to be insterested in his field of study
>only people that dislike him are religious fundamentalists that hate his field and "science" in general (for a psychiatrist this would be the equivalent of being hated by scientologists)
Peterson
>honestly no clue what he does when not writing or appearing in interviews
>has only published books for popular audiences
>refuses to discuss what's in his books in interviews other than vaguely hinting at it being lifesaving wisdom in hopes people buy them to find out
>despite his field being almost entirely removed from religion, feels the need to go to comical lenghts to dodge any questions regarding his faith or lack thereof, seemingly out of fear of losing clout or offending his fans?
>states everything as thought it's absolute truth, regardless if it's a hot take or consensus
>disliked by basically everyone in his field and a sizable portion of the general population, "love him or hate him" basically

I could go on and on drawing parallels between these two, like how their family lives are also complete opposites, but my question is, why does Peterson feel the need to bend over backwards to hide his faith (or lack of it?) when Ehrman is willing to appear in public debates criticising christianity but by being respectful and polite, he's able to teach an entire class of southerner evangelicans on a daily basis and have very good standing with his mostly christian colleagues, as well as his books being seen as the go-to introduction to biblical scholarship for general audiences AMONG CHRISTIANS, partially because he clearly denotes what is and isn't his personal opinion... shouldn't Ehrman be the one that's hiding his religious beliefs for clout? I mean if he wanted to make more money, keeping your opinions to a minimum and just focusing on repackaging scholarship for general audiences seems like the way to go, and that way he would have more sway over fundamentalists and not risk offending anybody, surely.

Meanwhile, Peterson is already controversial among anyone who isn't a fan of his, doesn't study religion... I just don't understand what drives him to go to comical lengths to hide his beliefs other than someone going "well why haven't you said that from the start" at this point?

Thoughts?