I think you are equating faith to only mean faith in god. And maybe even a specific god. To me, that sounds like less meaning, not more.
Discussion
I specifically did not. I mentioned other types of faith. Like faith that our memories are our own. Faith in God is only one way to build a set of axioms, but whatever your set of axioms, you have to have faith in it or you cannot make use of it.
Then we have nothing to disagree on. Are you suggesting I lack faith? Or philosophers lack faith? Or lack a set of axioms?
None of the above. I assert that philosophy has failed to produced a concrete methodology for discerning truth. If axioms exist and are accepted then we should have access to rigorous tools to answer philosophical questions. We should be able to make wise choices. But near as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong) modern philosophy's only claim is that you cannot make moral claims. You might find a system that can guide your personal decisions but not one that can be used to instruct someone else.
You can't build a functional society that way.
Again I may be way off base. I lost interest in modern philosophy after Kant and Hume. I don't even disagree with them. Their critique was correct. But all we had to do to fix it was to agree on some axioms and then continue. We haven't done that near as I can tell.
Philosophy’s only claim is: think.
Modern philosophy's only claim.
Imagine telling an aspiring plumber "work" or repeating the injunction to think to an engineer.
You must be able to tell the plumber how to work and the engineer how to think.
All I see from current schools of thought is how to sound smart without accomplishing anything. The emperor has no clothes! Plumbers are better philosophers because at least they can tell you something.
What are the alternatives to proof of work and proof of thought?