“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
In the midst of his rhetoric, notice the claim God is "unjust." While I have dealt with such an issue here and here, one wonders upon what ground Dawkins alleges God is unjust and, furthermore, why - even if we concede his vitriolic caricatures accurately depict God's character - he should give two hoots. Is there a particular reason Dawkins or any other atheist should find God morally repulsive? Such an answer requires a logical account of one's own moral perception. But this is an insoluble problem for Dawkins, for, as Hume notes in his A Treatise of Human Nature:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not , I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."
Dawkins must answer in what manner one may come to believe a given action should or should not be committed. The problem Dawkins faces is that if his secular world-view is correct, he cannot traverse from "is" to "ought" logically.
A common Darwinian reply to the question "from whence did moral perceptions derive?" is that historically, some group of people learned that through altruism or reciprocity, they acheived a certain, desireable goal: e.g. survival. This is an is answer. One person's (or, by extrapolation, muliple people's) likes and dislikes, however, does not constitute as a logical reason for the universalizing of those likes and dislikes. That one person enjoys his life does not suffice as a logical reason that all people should live. In fact, why should an individual himself do what he desires? It becomes quickly evident that the historical, Darwinian is answer, even if it were true, fails to account for how moral perceptions are rational. And this is generalizable for other secular philosophies as well.
Providentially, as Scripture is the ground of knowledge, Christians are equipped with an answer to the is-ought dilemma. Because the Bible is true, the should statements found in the Bible are also true. It is quite logical, then, for a Christian to affirm shoulds, and it is quite logical, without putting forth any further effort, to require men like Dawkins to furnish the proof with which they are burdened when they make such absurd statements as seen above.