Was Einstein Religious?

The book's first chapter defines, and twists, a few terms:

1) theism: belief in a supernatural creator who then oversees & influences the creation (e.g., a personal notion of God)
2) deism: belief in a supernatural creator who created the laws of nature, and then sits back -- "watered-down theism"
3) pantheism: God is a "non-supernatural synonym for Nature", which is an object of reverence, and, is only "sexed-up atheism".

In this way he tries to round up every religious scientist, Einstein included, into the atheism camp. This seems a bit cheap. 'Einsteinian religion' is the sense that behind experience 'there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection'. This doesn't look like atheism wearing make-up. First: Einstein posits 'a something', not merely 'something' and certainly not 'nothing'. Einstein seems clearly to be talking about a particular entity. That is hardly the same as saying 'the universe is a collection of physical laws, behind which there is nothing, though the laws are quite beautiful and worthy of appreciation'.

Dawkins endorses Einstein's statement, if 'cannot grasp' can mean that it might one day become 'graspable' (presumably through science).

There are at least 2 possible ways to read the Einstein quote:
1) An atheistic version: The laws of nature, knowable through science, are worthy of reverence (Dawkins view)
2) A theistic version: Our minds cannot grasp God, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us as a feeble reflection. God, in this case, is not a metaphor at all, but a thing.

Now, some Christian communities might say (and as Dawkins points out, have said) that Einstein's religion didn't cut the mustard -- which is not all that surprising, since he was Jewish.

I don't know whether Einstein believed in God or didn't. But it seems that the notion of an unknowable God is something that has been kicking around the heads of sincerely religious people for many centuries.

But Dawkins then says "The God Delusion does not refer to the God of Einstein." (p. 20) This seems like a large concession - I certainly identify with Einstein's God, but I'm not an atheist. Dawkin's is dichotomizing, theism vs atheism, in a way that fails acknowledge the heterogeniety of belief. In effect, he is trying to make atheism into the big tent, going so far as including people who freely use the word God, and then stating that these people are being "poetic". I don't know whether this will affect his later arguments, but if the point is to narrow the definition of "religious" to "people who believe Mary appears in visions on toast", it seems to foreshadow some serious straw man arguments.