What is so inherently difficult about being thoroughly logical?

Before anyone tells me that it is not difficult, I would have them read through the rest of the posts in this forum and see how many people employ logical principles consistently and correctly.

Part of me thinks that some of the difficulty comes from the fact that we are starting from different assumptions. Yes, I know that logical principles are separate from the statements and should be correct regardless of what premises one chooses to begin with. However, I think there is a reluctance to examine our assumptions (myself included). This reluctance, of course, is often (if not always) emotional in nature so we are back to the beginning again.

And before someone says that assumptions are not necessary to an argument, I would point out that that statement, given without proof, is an assumption.

Finally, where does Godel's Incompleteness Theorem that we cannot prove everything figure in?

First of all incompleteness does not enter into it at any point. This is the fallacy of assuming that if we do not know everything then we cannot know anything. It is silly in the extreme..

As for the unwillingness of some to think rationally, this is common in no small part because those who seek to control others (religion and politics being the big two) actively encourage non-thought, since rational thought defeats their efforts. This has been true for many thousand years, as evidenced by the trial of Socrates and other instances.

There is often a personal fear of being mistaken, or an investment in an ideology as opposedto an investement in truth, that creates a desire to promote the ideology in direct contradiction to truth.