If other ways had proven valuable, like revelation or Ouiji boards, we’d use those, too.
In his debate with Chopra, Sam Harris said that Einstein’s statement clearly showed that he didn’t believe in a conventional God.
It’s that conflation that has caused persistent confusion about Einstein’s beliefs.
Was he so eager to placate the faithful that he had to redefine “religion” as a godless awe?
I think that’s true, but it also shows that Einstein was confused about faith and confused about religion.
What he should have done is deep-six the world “faith” in favor of “confidence” and simply not claimed that curiosity and adherence to natural laws was a form of religion.
On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. He also errs by saying that religion deals “only with evaluations of human thought and action,” neglecting the palpable fact that many religions are also concerned with truth statements—statements about the existence of God, what kind of God he is, and what he wants, as well as how we got here and where we go after we die.
Indeed, in the third paragraph Einstein notes that religion in fact concern itself with truth statements, so he contradicts himself.
This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.
To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.