[chezlaw]

Logic isn't a game. Its to do with what we mean, whether the set of things we mean are consistent and what is implied by what we mean.

If we say chess is logical, we mean that the rules are consistent - there is no position where a move is allowed and not allowed. We may also mean that the games of chess is complete - there is no position where the rules don't tell us how to proceed.

Saying that chess is a game means that it can be played and if it wasn't logical (as above) then it couldn't be played so it wouldn't be a game.

Same for religon. A religon is logical if its beliefs are consistent - it doesn't require two contradictory beliefs at the same time. By 'contradictory beliefs' I mean two beliefs that cannot be held at the same time.

Saying R is a religon means R is believable which means all the beliefs entailed by R are believable. If R requires belief in two contradictory beliefs then it it is not believable.

Chess isn't a game if it cant be played and R isn't a religon if it can't be believed. Both would be illogical purely because being played/believed is meant by claiming that they are a game/religon.

and so on... religon (unlike chess) doesn't stand-alone, it has to be consistent with our other beliefs and what they mean. If the meanings of our other beliefs conflict with our religon then something has to give if we are to be logical.

Formal logic appears like a game of chess because it has rules, but formal logic is just an abstract way of analysing what follows from what we mean.

chez