If words have no real meaning, how can we communicate? How can we understand history? How can we convict someone of a crime? These questions and many more are not only raised, but, the irony is, as Zacharias pointed out, that while the postmodernist tells us that words have no real meaning, he uses words and words and more words to spell out his philosophy! May I say that this dynamic alone turns their approach to non-sense?

Second, according to the postmodern philosopher, there are no laws of logic governing our discourse. Zacharias outlined the four major laws of logic: a) the law of identity which says that A is not non-A; b) the law of non-contradiction which says it is not possible that something be true and not true at the same time; c) the law of the excluded middle which says that every statement is either true or false and there is nothing in between; and d) the law of rational inference which says that inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown.

Zacharias equates the postmodern way of looking at things with an eastern way of looking at things. It is often posited that the western approach to reality is an either/or dynamic while the eastern approach is a both/and dynamic. In eastern/postmodern thought, contradictions do not matter. A can be non-A, something can be true and not true at the same time, a statement doesn’t have to be true or false, it can be both or neither, and no inferences can be made from what is known to the unknown. Zacharias rightly, adroitly, and comically points out that the postmodern may be content with logical chaos in his mind but he does not experience this world or live in this world that way. When he crosses the street, he looks both ways at on-coming traffic and reduces his worldview to an either/or approach: “it’s either the bus or me!”

While the postmodern thinker tells us that we must think not in terms of either/or but both/and, the irony is that he tells us that we must think in terms of both/and or nothing else. Of course, the contradiction there is glaring and this irony too reduces their approach to non-sense.

Third, the postmodern asserts that there are no boundaries for meaning. Metanarratives that give smaller narratives meaning are disdained and rejected. There is no larger story that gives meaning to our world. Life is a think what you want and do what you want proposition. Of course, this outlook often leads to a life of reckless abandon and then destruction. As noted, the Scriptures speak of the postmodern thinkers among us, “Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1:21).”

As Zacharias pointed out, the postmodern philosophy writes out its individual’s stories by denying the overarching story. It seems obvious to me that if order and meaning cannot be given to our world or our own individual existence, then again, a system that sees no order and meaning for such has been exposed as non-sense. Put plainly, it is non-sense to say our existence is non-sense.