Hello, Calhoun! Thanks for the article. I have been thinking about it a lot since the day you posted it. I decided to make an account so I could comment.
I think there are some problems with Megill and Linford's arguments that have to do with imprecision in their language. I am in the process of writing a thorough counterargument, but it is taking longer than I expected, so I will just share the gist of it. I am something of a beginner to philosophy, so if I a missing something please let me know.
I think we can take the phrase "the meaning of life" as Megill and Linford use it and divide it into three separate concepts: (1) the purpose of a life, (2) the value of a life, and (3) the meaning of a life. For myself, I think the meaningful life is something like a life lived for a certain purpose. "Purpose" is an end for which one acts, and value is the condition of being desirable. Megill and Linford's arguments lose a lot of force once these distinctions are made.
Under classical theism, humanity has an innate value and an ultimate purpose. Our ultimate purpose, ie. the purpose for which God created us and the optimum condition for our flourishing, is loving union with God. But as the freedom to choose is a necessary condition for loving relationship, God rightly gives us freedom to choose to pursue our own ends. Some choose to spend their life on baser purposes. We say to these people that they are living "a meaningless life," but they do not lack purpose or value. They have purpose and value simply by being human persons created and loved by God. By my reading, this account of purpose, value, and meaning avoids most, if not all, of Megill and Linford's arguments. Try it out at and tell me what you think.