I'm just noting that some beliefs are 'acts of faith' on the part of the "believer", in things and concepts that fail to show up in the lab. That's true in 'science' as well as 'religion'. I do however recognize a significant difference between empirical physics and hypothetical physics. The pure acts of faith occur in hypothetical physics.
But even if we start with string theory, that "desire" to tinker with the math to make it 'look right' is really just an emotionally (probably curiosity) driven process. Whether it actually has any meaning in the real world however is anyone's guess. There's no falsification mechanism, and no verification mechanism. It's just something people do because it interests them personally and it gives them an enjoyable outlet for their mathematical skills.
The "popular" maths created to describe SUSY theory have all been falsified at LHC, and SUSY theory flunked it's own "golden test". What remains now are the "bottom of the barrel" concepts, and "hope" apparently.
I hear you about the mathematical aspect, but it is actually never used in astronomy to falsify BB theory. Specifically it's never used to falsify their *pure faith* in metric expansion of space, and all the supernatural constructs around that same claim. Failures only lead to *additional* supernatural constructs, not a falsification of the original claims.
How about the case with SUSY theory or Guth's claims about homogeneity on the largest scales, where the math and the claim was demonstrated to be *incorrect*?
If there is no valid way to falsify the *original* claims, it's not really 'science' anymore, it's pure religion.
It is to me. It bugs me as much as it bugs atheists when theists use overconfident language about 'evidence for God'. When there is no evidence of doubt, no evidence of them second guessing their *original* claims, and no empirical support, then it's really just a two bit *bad* religion.
Well, I'm afraid my last 8 years of online debates would suggest exactly the opposite is true. Just look at the draconian rule system over at Cosmoquest. Any and all opposing cosmological points of view are actually dismissed with great prejudice, and even *major* falsification data is simply swept under the carpet, much like we're seeing with the Planck data right now. Every possible falsification opportunity is simply used as an excuse to insert yet another ad hoc supernatural construct.
The basic "expansion'" dogma is the equivalent of a "sacred" belief in astronomy today, even though Hubble himself talked about *two* possible solutions/explanations for redshift, not one.