Myth:
If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so? The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is nothing but gibberish. If the universe is meaningless, undesigned, and undirected, then we can speak meaningfully about beauty, love, intelligence, etc.
Response:
A popular belief among religious theists is that the only way to explain abstract concepts like love and beauty is through supernatural beings like souls or their god. Thus atheists who don't believe in their god or perhaps in anything supernatural supposedly have no ability to even acknowledge the existence of love and beauty, much less experience and appreciate them. Not only is this obviously false on an empirical level, but it also commits an obvious logical fallacy: the Fallacy of Division.
The Fallacy of Division involves taking an attribute of a whole or a class and assuming that it must also necessarily be true of each part or member, for example by saying that because America is the richest nation on earth, then every citizen of America is rich. In this myth, we have someone using this fallacy in reverse by arguing that if the whole lacks some attribute, then every part of the whole must also lack it.
It's thus a wrong to argue that if the whole lacks an attribute (intrinsic meaning and beauty), then the parts must also lack that attribute. Consider this example which uses the same reasoning and same logical fallacy in a different context: "If my car as a whole is not invisible to the naked eye, how can the atoms that make it up be said to be invisible to the naked eye? The answer, of course, is that they can't." Such talk is nothing but gibberish.
There are no logical or empirical reasons why the premise "the universe is undesigned" must necessarily and logically lead to the conclusion "there is no meaningful way to talk about beauty, intelligence, etc." Some people draw this conclusion, but that doesn't make it a necessary conclusion and that's what some religious theists need it to be. If they can't claim that atheism leads to a lack of meaning and beauty, they will find it harder to keep pretending to be superior to atheists.
The only way to even begin to think that this argument is true is if one defines concepts like "meaning" and "beauty" from an exclusively theistic perspective — in other words, to use definitions that ensure that the concepts only make sense in the context of their god. That, however, would commit the fallacy of Begging the Question. It's also likely an example of the argument from ignorance, because the underlying position for many may be "I can't see how it's possible to acknowledge the existence of love and beauty without believing in my god, therefore it must not be possible at all."
There are indeed atheists who find no meaning, beauty, and morality in the universe. There are also atheists who find objective, intrinsic morality, beauty, and meaning in the universe, though not on the same basis as religious theists like Christians. There are also atheists — as well as more than a few religious theists, including Christians — who argue that meaning and beauty are subjective things we must personally commit to. As abstract concepts, they are created in our minds from our experiences with individual objects or events and thus have no truly independent, objective existence apart from the way we bring those elements together to create those concepts.
This would mean that things like beauty and love are created from how we approach our world or how we treat other people. If that's true, then it also means that we are personally responsible for the existence of things like beauty and love — they aren't created by any gods and they are permanent fixtures of the universe which will persist regardless of what we do. They are, instead, something we must take responsibility for and nurture through out attitudes, behavior, and beliefs.
That would arguably mean that atheists are in a better position to appreciate things like love and beauty. In recognizing their responsibility for their existence, atheists can't take such concepts for granted. If the universe is undesigned and undirected, we can only speak meaningfully about beauty, love, intelligence, etc., if we really mean it and if we really care about it because we can't shift responsibility for them to some supernatural being.
