In the epilog of this book, there is the following quote:

"Now in the beginning of the 21st Century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

Christopher Schoenborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, 2005

Of course, science has never had, as part of its overarching mandate, and desire or need to "explain away" religion. Science, by its nature, deals with facts, and is therefore unconcerned with fictions, however grandiose, unless, of course, they block the investigative pathways science must follow.

This has been a significant role the the Church for many centuries, of course. Which brings us to the inherent irony of the statement quoted above. It is not science that tries to "explain away" what is real, but rather religion which, by its very nature, has sought even in its most primitive forms to create "explanations" for and of the natural world. Unlike science, various religions have then taken it upon themselves to spread their imaginary solutions at the point of a sword.

Religion is traditionally about making up stories, needed, at the time, to fill the gulf of ignorance created be the lack of practical, testable knowledge. Science steps in to take up that particular battle, but, alas, all too often finds itself battling religion as well, as superstition and fear are used to control the minds and hearts of believers, and that which IS true and testable is dismissed, as in the statement from Cardinal Schoenborn.

The reality, tho, to frame it in a slightly different context, is that a geographer, when drawing a map of the world as we know it, is not in any way attempting the "explain away" Tolkien's Middle Earth, just as the various NASA missions to Mars contained no instruction to overturn the writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

As an amusing sidebar…

I was introduced to the concept of parallel universes by the writings of Garner Fox (1911-1986).

Gardner Fox. . .

Hugh Everett III. . .

But if we read the story from the beginning, instead of looking only a the "last page", we see that the history of the Earth (and, again, the Universe) is one of many chapters, most of which were most intolerant of weak little biological blobs like us. We are here because our ancestors managed to get a toe-hold during one of the brief periods when the Earth was a bit more forgiving -- not buried in ice, for instance -- not because the Earth was specifically tailor made FOR us. Life adapts to the environment, not the other way 'round -- however appealing it might be to our egos to assume the reverse.

••

Apparently the multiverse hypothesis provides answers for some of the questions posed by quantum theory. And Stephen Hawking has embraced the multiverse as a "solution" to one of the more vexing problems presented by black holes.

From what I have read, the multiverse is also a possible solution to one of the biggest questions about gravity, ie why is it so weak? We think of gravity as an enormously powerful force, and yet every day we beat gravity in the most casual ways. Just stand up, for instance, and you are working against the ENTIRE PLANET pulling down on you.

Some have suggested this inherent weakness in gravity might be explained if the force is not "native" to our universe, and is actually "leaking in" from somewhere else.

I was 10 when I first hypothesized about quantum gravity being
domething akin to electromagnetism, and I still suspect that somehow
it radiates from stars holding solar systems, galaxies, and the universe
together.

These forces hold nuclei together, atoms together, molecules together,
and the entire universe together. It makes sense that they also hold
the multiverse together and only vary in strength relative to the size
and distances they span. Electromagnetism is stronger than gravity,
but I wonder if you compare the energy of the quanta that hold the
electron around the nucleus to the energy that holds Pluto to the sun,
if still seems so week. This difference, too, I think is simply relative...

But I can't do the math :-(

But the reality, as with so much else in the universe, is very much stranger. (Remember, "the universe is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we CAN suppose.")

Gravity isn't like the attraction between charged particles. It's all about the mass of objects "bending" spacetime, so that a less massive object "falls into" the "depression" created by a more massive object. And that applies to all objects, no matter their size.