snip: What’s really puzzling is Einstein didn’t always “adhere” to his ideas. The way he thought on the question of determinism vs. free will, and the way he actually “acted it out” in his life, were mutually exclusive.
In “Demonic Nothingness, Liberalism’s Eternal ‘Equality’ in Hell,” the internal contradiction you have pointed to is addressed under the subheading: What is Wrong with Liberals?
Einstein held two antithetical truth-claims in his mind simultaneouly. One was really true while the other was really false. As pride is offended by true truth, it selectively rejects it and postulates the false truth-claim as truth. That is what Einstein did. In fact, all positivist materialists and idealist pantheists find themselves in this untenable position.
Such is the case with Steven Pinker. As a scientist he teaches, “The mechanistic stance allows us to understand what makes us tick and how we fit into the physical universe.” This is his false truth-claim proclaimed publicly.
Privately however, he confesses true truth: “When those discussions wind down for the day, we go back to talking about each other as free and dignified human beings.”
(quotes on p. 108, Total Truth, Nancy Pearcy)
I'm not convinced that Einstein did this. For one thing, it appears from all accounts that he was a man of deep personal humility — which accords with his constant reference to the awesome, not-humanly-fathomable mystery that lies at the root of the Universe. It doesn't square that he, by all reports a scrupulously honest man, would be inclined to make judgments on the basis of personal pride.
Whatever the case, I don't think Einstein was either a positivist materialist, or an idealist pantheist. I have no handy label for him.