Why demand logic?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of what you say (particularly about consistency) might be true for chess and other games in particular, but I can imagine games where it won't be true. Saying that "games are logical", or "every game is logical", or even "games are self-consistent" as a generalization, does not make sense.

Imagine a game, where the rules of it are: "lets pretend we are in a dream". We can play it, it's a game. In what way does this game have to be logical, or logically-self-consistent for that matter? It can be consistent in the way a dream is consistent, which is very far from the idea of "logically consistent" you talk about.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, its the same thing. You've just using a slightly different meaning of game. The point is that its the meaning of game that imposes constraints on what is a game.

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is that some religions are logical, or could be logical. However - this certainly isn't some requirement for a religion! I can certainly think of many religions who require contradiciting beliefs at the same time. For instance: 3=1, while at the same time 3!=1.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but you can't believe two contradictory things at the same time (that's what I mean by contradictory beliefs) so the religon is unbelievable.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking for "consistency" in a religion is exactly the kind of absurd I was talking about. Another very general example: in many religions, certain objects are ALSO other things (not symbolizing other things, but ARE other things). This is "dream-logic", not the "logic" you talk about. However, these religions _exist_. Therefore, you can't say that "non-logical" religions are not religions, pretty much as you can't say so about games.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't say 'non-logical religons' are not religons, of course they are religons they're just not logical - faith is required (which in this case means not worrying about the bits you cant believe in the hope they will turn out to make sense later).

chez