"...arbitrary values that apparently define the physics of our universe somewhat."
In other words, this constant is a piece of a model, fitted to observable behaviour, subject to refinement based on empirical data. And the model may at some point be able to offer insight as to why things are as they are; "just because" is not viewed by most physicists as a permanent explanation.
This is the exact opposite of religious thinking which offers conclusions in advance of, and regardless of, any empirical data.
My point is that the parallel you're trying to draw between religious prescription and the things that scientists call "axioms" is not valid.
>"just because" is not viewed by most physicists as a permanent explanation
Why do you suppose this is any different for a Christian physicist, say, than for any other physicist? That aside I imagine that many physicists hold to a form of Anthropic Principle which almost fits the definition of "just because".
As an agnostic I always felt that God was the cop-out answer that replaced "we don't know". As a Christian not knowing everything still frustrates me but knowing now that within our current knowledge it is provable that not everything is knowable softens the blow of that somewhat (Godel, Church-Turing, etc.).
>religious thinking which offers conclusions in advance of, and regardless of, any empirical data
You suppose that religion is false to state your position, of course you do, but if you suspend your supposition then you see that religion 'offers truth in advance of reason'.
Christians generally, IME, don't say that God exists as the conclusion of a logical argument it's presuppositional in the same way as assumption of the validity of ones own sense data, or the assumption of ones actual self or of an external world.
Christians take that 'Christ died for our sins and was resurrected to heaven' and live by it and find that it works. Physicists take that 'c is constant for all observers' and live by it and find that it works. Obviously 'it works' means many different things both to the Christian and to the scientist (coherentism, instrumentalism, etc.).
"...if you suspend your supposition then you see that religion 'offers truth in advance of reason'"
This statement is a tautology, and also completely beside the point. It matters not whether a belief held religiously is actually true. By definition, a belief held religiously is held without regard to reason or evidence. The extent to which reason and evidence intrude is the extent to which faith is obviated.
This entire process, this way of thinking, is and should be entirely alien to science. And the anthropic principle is not science. It's not even a principle -- it's conjecture. It's not testable, not falsifiable, and it has no material effect on any scientific research, influential though it may in philosophical terms.
Your last statement is ..., it's ... no. Just, no. There is nothing alike about those two things. The constant c is, again, eminently isolatable in experiment, quite testable, and part of part of a quite falsifiable theory. The statement that following Christ has worked well for your life, even if true in whatever sense you like, is everything science is not: anecdotal, unfalsifiable, and untestable if only for the presence of millions of variables that cannot be isolated, controlled, or even known. You're conflating two completely separate things.
btw, I'm a big fan of this anthropic jazz. It is aesthetically pleasing to me, like the thought of any finely crafted machine, but it is in no way shape or form scientific.
In other words, this constant is a piece of a model, fitted to observable behaviour, subject to refinement based on empirical data. And the model may at some point be able to offer insight as to why things are as they are; "just because" is not viewed by most physicists as a permanent explanation.
This is the exact opposite of religious thinking which offers conclusions in advance of, and regardless of, any empirical data.
My point is that the parallel you're trying to draw between religious prescription and the things that scientists call "axioms" is not valid.