>Nevertheless, he also expressed his belief that "if one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."
The disjunctive arrives from the first comma and that there aren't any conjunctive prepositions linking your object1 and object2. Thus the disjunct statements combined in this form are
A) "if one purges the Judaism of the Prophets one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity".
Wherein I'm not sure which group of prophets are antecedent here. "The prophets" in Christian theology refers to the minor prophets of the latter part of the OT.
and B) "if one purges Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."
As I said I accept the alternate reading that these two teaching, those arrived at through A and B, combined should instead be used to create the ultimate teaching.
However you appear to believe that he said it didn't create any teaching, it created an absence of teaching. You've heavily modified the scope of his intent without there being any indication as to how it should be modified. You say the Gospels were "written by priests" and so should be purged. Yet they are primary sources of what "Jesus Christ taught" (and indeed were not written by priests). He claims this process leaves one with an ultimate teaching. But your bowdlerised version of the methodology leaves one with nothing.
You appear to want this to say "imagine no religion" (or words to that effect), that such a thing would cure humanity of all social ills - despite this being outside of Einstein's area of genius I still can't believe he was such a fool.
Primarily the point was that based on my reading Einstein and Russell take importantly distinct positions, both agnostic. That categorising their attitudes to religion, and hence the scope of agnostic beliefs, as indistinct is unhelpful verging on disingenous. I'll hold that position for now unless you have much better arguments than you've so far put.
>Try it yourself. //
Ha. I became an atheist as a child until I realised that position is scientifically unsound. Going forward I studied philosophy, maths and physics. Then I became a Christian based on personal experiences.
Studying - and being presented as trustworthy - Haeckl and Hubble at high-school taught me not to trust someone for their reputation; neither the teachers nor the purportedly eminent scientists.
I use scientific methods which rather preclude me "turn[ing] to the scientists" who are as likely as any priest to have a bias. Ultimately I'm a pyrrhonist but practically, beyond first axioms [trustworthyness of sensedata, continuity of time dimension(s), and such] I'm a Christian as that is the empirical conclusion.