I'm sure there are many out there that will disagree with all this, but hopefully this establishes that there is a rational, well-thought out tradition that expresses that (1) beauty is objective (and not subjective) and (2) it is not a coincidence that beauty and truth are both considered objective in that tradition.
I haven't read the book you mention, so I am not sure if I have the full context. I will assume that he means "attractiveness" as the same as "beauty."
It has long been part of the Christian tradition to lay down criteria for "objective beauty." Father Robert Barron has a good lecture summarizing why beauty is objective in the Christian (specifically Catholic) tradition. Most of his argument ultimately comes from Acquinas (summarized here, originally here):
Beauty includes three conditions, "integrity" or "perfection," since those things which are impaired are by the very fact ugly; due "proportion" or "harmony"; and lastly, "brightness" or "clarity," whence things are called beautiful which have a bright color.
I don't know enough to know exactly when this argument was first introduced, but in the 20th century, due to primarily to the work of von Balthasar, the understanding among Catholic Philosophers (and maybe other Christian philosophers, I'm not sure) is that Beauty, Goodness and Truth are realizations of the same reality via different means (Beauty through the physical senses, Goodness through the moral sense, Truth through the rational sense, reason).
The question wasn't asked, but the passage brings up another point: when trying to persuade someone, which do we begin with: the true, the good or the beautiful? Father Barron (again, taking his argument from Aquinas and Balthasar, as well as experience) argues that one should start with beauty. Barron gives an interesting example: when trying to get a 7-year old interested in sports, you don't give him or her a rule book or stat sheet. You bring him or her to a game, observe the spectacle, consume the experience with the senses.
In a religious context, some churches will try to bring people in with, for example, bingo games. But, looking again at Aquinas's definition of beauty, this does not make the church attractive: bingo games distract from what makes something a church. Instead, consider how Churches have a particular architecture, paintings, sculptures, use particular music, etc. These physical things are beautiful and appeal to the senses, and represent the same reality that the Church (one hopes!) presents (as truth and goodness) to those who participate in it.