Historically, not only theologians and party theorists but also political rulers have had as one their most central assignments the one of 'defensores fidei', for such reasons. They do undergo testing of sorts, I would think. For instance, though the theological concepts you mention cannot be tested as if they were distanceable objects, they prove their effectiveness to believers, in various ways. Although this is not important in the context of Raman's commentary, it merits some discussion, and I would be interested in the opinions of others on this question. Similar opinions can be found in a number of twentieth century writings, with various implications.
Some examples follow.
In earlier times words and concepts were often sacred rather than arbitrary, and this was the method by which positive truths could be maintained even if they were recognized as intellectually absurd. It is the gaming aspect which expresses the arbitrariness of opinion, with its increased 'freedom' and responsibility. Ludwig Wittgenstein was of the opinion that philosophical questions were 'language games', not real problems. He de-emphasized 'understanding', and 'mental states' in general, to the extent that he called the use of these concepts 'a general disease of thinking'. With this question I do not mean to be facetious, because with slight variations this applies to many life situations.