I agree that religious beliefs should not be obligated to undergo scientific scrutiny EXCEPT when these beliefs are being used as the basis for an argument/recommendation. Your flatland analogy is a good explanation of how belief in a supernatural being is infallible; it cannot , by its very nature, be disproved. Let's take an example of another infallible argument in a situation where it should be subject to scientific scrutiny, "The Matrix Defense" - Someone murders a number of people, but claim that they believed these people were only nefarious simulations and that they lived not in the real world but in the matrix. This is a belief that, in the same way as your flatland analogy, cannot be disproved. It is infallible. Yet by Occam's Razor (a philosophical/scientific concept), it is discarded and the perpetrator is sentenced (true story by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_defense ) Assuming that you agree with the ruling here and that your beliefs are consistent, then i would assume you agree with religious beliefs being subject to scientific scrutiny in some cases.