Kdog Can someone help me analyze a letter response from Albert Einstein?

I need to do a response to this letter between a 6th grade girl and Albert Eistein.

How rhetorically effective do you find Eistein's response? Explain your answer in terms of subject, speaker, audiance; context and purpose, and appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos.

Here's the letter:

Dear Phyliis,
I have tried to respond to your question as simply as i could. Here is my answer.
Scientifc research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a search scietnist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural being.
However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

This is my response:
Albert Einstein is well qualified to answer the question because he received a World Peace Prize in Physics. He appeals to logos based on his reputation. He also explains to the girl how science operates and how everything takes place based on the laws of nature. In terms of ethos, he does understand that she is only in the 6th grade and he tries to explain things as simply as he can. He explains how science works and mentions that science is sort of like religion in that you have to have faith in the existence of Nature's laws. The purpose was to say: no, scientists do not rely on faith. But appeals to pathos when he says that science is like religion and he gets a religious sort of feeling when pursuing science, so as not to hurt the girls feelings. Overall however, I think that it was not effective rhetorically. It is clear that he looks down on religion, even though he notes the similarity between the two. He calls religious people "naive." This is ironic because the girl who wrote it could have possibly come from a religious background. In summary, he bashed religion and said that science and religion are completely different. This letter probably upset the girl and did not speak to her.

Questions: How to use context and Does he relate to Pathos much?

Please correct. Grammar also. Thanks in advance. How rhetorically effective was my response?