Second: belief in a higher power, as answered on a Pew Research poll, seems to directly imply deism as a belief. I agree that it isn't 'religion' which has a set of dogmas & behaviors, or even deism worship, but I don't think someone that believes gravity is a higher power would answer yes to this question on a poll. It has a fair bit of connotation that implies a particular belief.
Thirdly, I agree, it's an unfair comparison, and a bit of a ham-fisted article. I submitted because it was the most clearly written on the topic I could find.
Fourthly, If Einstein was a pantheist, he was theist. Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists.
he was also a known apologist for religion, oft quoted for writing in the NYT Magazine "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Why would a scientifically minded religious ilk NOT try to incorporate such rhetoric as their own? and, why does that upset you?
Einstein seemed to have a respect for religion's acceptance that human understanding is flawed. a quote from Isaacson's biography:
"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"
I am not religious, nor particularly spiritual, but I do believe that a respect for religion is a positive thing. I find wisdom in attitudes that try to include the value that religion brings to the human condition as opposed to damning it for 'making shit up' scientifically. I'm well acquainted with religion's uglier and more ignorant sides (grew up in Saudi Arabia, family in West Texas), but I agree with Einstein (Nassim Taleb also writes some interesting stuff on this) that I would prefer an attitude that accepts the weakness of our understanding.
I appreciate your comment, I submitted the article for discussion and I got it.
"Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration."
-- Stan Kelly-Bootle
Second: "belief in a higher power" is a very vague statement and in no way implies worship of a creator deity, and even less: religion. Lumping in religion with theism (a mere component of religion, not even a necessary one) is grossly wrong. We are all subject to higher powers every day that we exercise little control over, be they forces of nature or what have you. That does not mean they are divine, sapient or anything of the sort.
Thirdly, atheism comes in various degrees: strong/weak, explicit/implicit, gnostic/agnostic. The article presents a false trinity: "There's only two extremes and a middle ground!" No.
Finally, I despise when theists try to incorporate Einstein as one of their own. The Einsteinian God has absolutely nothing to do with theistic notions of a creator God. Rather, Einstein was a pantheist whose God was a metaphor for nature, reality and knowledge. He was not a believer in creation or divinity. This article tries to equivocate his statements, as many other religious demagogues have done before.
Sharpen your arguments.