Rees, an early supporter of Linde’s ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory’s predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot.
In other words, it is an application of the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that--that's what science does.
So how does this differ from religion?
Science relies on evidence, and the testing of theories based on that evidence. Religion relies on dogma and belief, and is not subject to tests using the scientific method.
You neglected to mention a key feature of science: It is in a state of constant change. Religion, on the other hand, is static (or nearly so).
The idea of a constant and absolute truth continues to be a powerfully comforting thought to billions of people. On the other hand, the constantly shifting truths or theories of science can be somewhat unsettling.
Like Global Warming.
/sarcasm
“To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions”
that’s the problem. There is no such thing as a multiverse theory that makes testable predictions. It’s just another bogus idea in search of a government grant.
In other words, it is an application of the scientific method. Nothing unusual about that—that’s what science does.
So how does this differ from religion?
Science relies on evidence, and the testing of theories based on that evidence. Religion relies on dogma and belief, and is not subject to tests using the scientific method.
Uh-huh...now show us all the godless liberal NEA lunatics lining up to sue the proponents of this multiverse “theory” into silence because they can not come up with the demanded “scientific evidence” or “proof”.
They will NEED a theory? Now that’s curious, the same courtesy wasn’t extended to the chemist and others that proposed that chemicals don’t just up and form life all by themselves.
Quite the disconnect, per usual.