the fact that the universal declaration of human rights mentions faith doesn't mean that the central humanistic concept of human dignity ultimately rests on faith. it just means that enough people formulating the declaration were unwilling to give up the mention of faith for their own personal reasons or for fear of offending their constituency in their home countries. humanism does not revolve around that declaration. it is its own philosophy. if the declarers have added faith for whatever reason, that does not taint the original concept.

g

Thank you for these discerning observations. I think perhaps that there are two key issues at stake here, the first concerns vocabulary (in this case, the word faith), while the second deals with values (in this case, human rights).

The word faith is too broad, as it covers both the religious (which is where I typically go) as well as nonreligious realms, synonymous with more general terms like ‘confidence,’ ‘conviction,’ ‘trust,’ ‘hope,’ ‘commitment,’ ‘optimism’ or (secular) ‘belief’ itself. I think we can safely assume that the usage of the word ‘faith’ in the UDHR is nonreligious.

With regard to the value of ‘human rights,’ the very acknowledgement of the concept requires a concession by those who hold power—historically the throne and the altar. To be sure, individuals and minorities have, throughout history, demanded rights, but those in power have generally ignored or opposed to the point of persecution, such demands. Human rights in general, and Humanism specifically, value the individual unit over the group, and this can be a ‘hard sell’ to both the East and the West. In-group loyalty—to family, clan, tribe, nation, religion, party, state—as cited by Jonathan Haidt in his research—remains a persistent priority. On very rare occasions, a moment in history produces an artifact documenting the value of rights—the Magna Carta, the American Declaration of Independence and the UDHR are but three—in which the principles would seem almost universal. Alas, this is far from the case.

Peace.

The actions of the human race again shows that faith is cannot be proved and again if the scientific method were applied it would show how lacking faith can be.

I think that in a misguided attempt to inspire others, we unwisely use florid language to try to elevate concepts we are discoursing about, beyond what is really necessary. That is why discussions of "human dignity" start to have a religious flavor to them, and it's understandable that this is mistaken for religious faith.

The fact though is that people and their behaviors are real, not imaginary. One can observe humans and human behavior and predict that behavior to some degree of certainty. And so you can have a rational conviction that on an overall basis, dignity begets dignity, that people will tend to live up to their human potential if we give them the freedom / space / affirmation to do so. This isn't some blind leap of religious faith, it is simple observation and generalization from the specific to the typical. It is trust based on observation, experience, and reason (not to mention a scientific understanding of humans as hyper-social creatures), and used to develop an abstraction that we can operate by, at least by default and in most contexts.

So I would say that "trust in human dignity" is shorthand for recognizing human potential and responding appropriately in context. It is not a leap of faith about some mysterious, esoteric, imagined human quality at all. [In]dignity arises from observable behaviors; it doesn't have to be imagined out of whole cloth.

I don't know much about "The Preamble...", but I think the people who created The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't even believe what they were writing. I don't think they believed their own words or ever had the intention of following through on what their documents advocate. It was lip service. At least it was from James Madison, that's for sure.

Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Maybe the “faith” quoted in the Universal Declaration is just rhetorical. Maybe what was meant was that there is overwhelming agreement. It would be possible to concoct some sort of persuasive argument but that would take s lot of words and would probably spur objections and divisiveness.

In my opinion the Declaration of Independence is a highly trumped up, flowery document that was unnecessary. I’d have written it as follows: “Your Highness, we, the official representatives of the American colonies have determined that our best interests are in separation from Great Britain. We therefore hereby declare ourselves to be free and independent States. We wish to leave your realm peacefully but we are prepared to defend our sovereignty if necessary. We wish you well.

Another reason I don't claim to be a humanist.
I don't believe in the "sanctity" of life, either.

An extraterrestrial who objectively observed mankind's effect on the planet would not value "human dignity". Cherishing human dignity is a subjective DECISION, not a matter of faith. Given society's current state and direction, I am ambivalent about such a decision.

It is only based on faith as stated in that one particular document. I had nothing to do with it's being written.