In the short article “Religion and Science”, Einstein proposes 3 progressions in religion; from the most primitive religions of fear (early Old Testament) through religions of Morality (New Testament) to modern 'Cosmic Religion', exemplified perhaps by Spinoza.
Another favourite passage:
“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the
universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the
idea of a being who interferes in the course of events--that is, if he takes the
hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear
and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and
punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, **so that in God's eyes he cannot
be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the
motions it goes through** (This I particularly like, grim).
Hence science has been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by
fear and punishment and hope of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the Churches have always fought science and
persecuted its devotees. On the other hand, I maintain that cosmic religious
feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Grim's post sums up Einstein's viewpoint beautifully.

I'm a fan of Einstein because he seems to radiate the best of humanity. He lauded intuition and imagination as the prime movers behind his own discoveries - and spirituality as indispensable to progressive thinking. He realised that for all that man had advanced in modern times, that he was still like a child in his ignorance.

He said, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever..."

BAC,
You are totally biased, demeaning and dishonest about the part genuine followers of Christ have played in history. These last few posts given by Poirot, Grim and George regarding the inspiration of the creation, the universe and ultimate questions of why - have contributed to research and discovery. Faith is intuitive belief in the current unseen that there is a reality beyond the current known; Unexplored universes of Galileo totally accepted by the Church today, the microscopic reality of Louis Pasteur etc

George wrote: “You might be right, but that does not change what Einstein actually said/wrote that Tony Lavis and I quoted here.”

In the same fashion that creationists take advantage of the fact that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist (due to the more ignorant times he lived in) and prop him up to give credence to their views - while completely ignoring the times in which he lived - I think too many theists (and mystics) take advantage of the fact that the socialization of Einstein’s more religious and ignorant times would most likely have influenced his way of wording what he’d said on a few occasions (George’s Einstein quote, “I’m not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist...”, was a good example of this) and compelled him to be more generous to mysticism and religion than he would have been had he lived in our more knowledgeable and enlightened times.

I think this is partially what Rusty was getting at.

Grim’s quote is a good example: “What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer
this question at all implies a religion.”

No, it doesn’t. Not in today’s understanding of what a religion is anyway. And I strongly believe that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would most certainly have used different wording to say what he meant - if he’d even said it (or thought that way) at all. But he was probably using the term “religion” very loosely - like he’d do with the term “God”. Unfortunately, however, theists often ignore these inconvenient details and latch on to them.

Never underestimate the theist’s willingness to misinterpret what we say... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#101967. A lesson Both Stephen Hawking Einstein and have/had learned.

AJ Philips,

"...And I strongly believe that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would certainly have used different wording to say what he meant...."

If you're saying that, had Einstein lived in our times, he would have used wording more akin to that of Dawkins, then I think you're underestimating Einstein.
He strikes me as a man who understood very well the implications for meaning of the words he used.

AJ Philips,

You are close to the mark. All these men grew up in what would be to us intensely religiose societies where the much maligned "secular" was not the norm. Each existed at the very ragged edge of heresy (Newton was *not* trinitarian, yet those who hold up Newton as an axample do not mimic his finely developed stance on the matter).

These men were exceeding bright boys, and I would argue that they would have been exceeding bright boys regardless of their religious background. Both (and many others!) were forced by their intellect and personal honesty to take religious positions just short of those that would prevent their expulsion from influential roles or even attract punishment. Aristocrats could be jailed for not supporting the correct religious views in Newton's time, commoners could suffer much more. Soviet scientists were equally careful to overtly support communism and to oppose it only to the degree they wished to be punished. Einstein could not have been unaware of the religious hysteria that has always been present in the "united states".

Einstein had been socialised to consider "god" as having personal attributes we might comprehend "subtle not malicious" "does not play dice" etc. Yet, knowing what is now known about quantum processes, he could not help but retract one of those statements.

As I said, from the point of view of the church, anybody modelling their spirituality on the remote deity envisaged by Einstein would be indistinguishable from an atheist.

Rusty