Well, it's hard to create a blanket response for all philosophers, but I'll respond in the general spirit of physicalists who recognize a dichotomy between the real and the unreal and generally reject the supernatural. By doing so, I take a metaphysical position. While many philosophers disagree on many things, contemporary Western philosophers generally recognize that the craft of philosophy starts here, with what Descartes called first principles. For instance, you write:
all views are based on faith.
This, of course, is one of your first principles, but not a principle shared by me or most thinkers who place a high value on natural philosophy, empirical thinking, or rationalism.
To many, not all views are based on faith. As such, it becomes simple to prove things are real given an adequate definition of proof and real, a subject of ontology. According to WP:
Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,4 while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.6
To those who have considerable experience in philosophy, it is obvious that you presume your definition of faith, as many believers are wont to do; your belief is so predictable, that the article opens up to address the basic issue that not everyone shares your definition of faith. And yet, the notion that all belief is just a degree of faith and thus uncertain is an old, but questionable presumption. Thus, by your metaphysical first principles, you are working with an entirely different frame of context when you use words like evidence, reality, and proof. So, for you, it is a philosophical problem to distinguish reality from the unreal, because for you, the real is based on physically unjustified belief. A cognitive scientist, on the other hand has theories of representation and misrepresentation and more than 500 years of natural philosophy and science to fall back on for separating the two and there is no philosophical problem at all.
Religious folk who wander onto this board often arrive with a conditioned set of beliefs and an agenda to affirm, that such and such a belief in such and such a supernatural doctrine is true, and often twist themselves into conniptions to produce a worldview that avoids cognitive dissonance. Logical contradiction, obviously, is a big no-no among philosophers historically, and events like the publication of Russell's paradox are seminal events in the history of philosophy. Philosophers as a whole range a whole gamut of metaphysical positions, and these positions are what are studied, along with logic, language, and history.
To a physicalist who acknowledges fallibilism, your claim that all views are based on 'faith' is resoundingly rejected, starting with the idea that intuitions are faith. They're not. We all start out with what might be termed a naive realism. From WP:
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. When referred to as direct realism, naïve realism is often contrasted with indirect realism.
Thus, we are born with our senses, and that helps us distinguish the real from the unreal. In psychology, for instance, crawling babies who are brought to an edge with clear plexiglass won't crawl over the edge; millions of years of evolution have created the brain to be an organ to separate the real from the unreal. So, philosophers often recognize intuition (which is often characterized as the subconscious mind in contemporary, professional philosophy), and brute facts as a starting point in their beliefs. Neither of those is faith. Let's explore.
Gravity, even to physicists is essentially a brute fact. While progress has been made in describing gravity a la Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, and LIGO may be the first step in discovering how to develop anti-gravity propulsion, currently the stuff of fiction, for a physicist to claim that gravity isn't real would draw smirks and get someone labeled as a crank. First, to claim something is real or not well, one has to be versed in ontology, which is a philosophical domain. But, gravity is practically a trope for that which is inescapably real.
Would you throw yourself out a window and rely on faith to save you? Well, I wouldn't, and I'd strongly counsel anyone not to do so. See, those who have "faith" often don't actually have faith, even by their own standards, and thankfully so. The simple fact, and yes it is a fact, a well-established fact going on 10,000+ years of historical testimony, a fact borne out by conscious thought and memory, a fact born out by reason and trial and error, that a human being who releases their body to gravity from a great height will more than likely die, and that once dead, will not come back. For someone to say "you have faith that gravity will work to kill you in a fall" clearly hasn't been paying attention to how things really work. In fact, this is such a challenge to faith, that those who use the first definition of faith have to invent and use "miracles". You can't pray rockets to orbit; dead people don't come back to life days later; and the sciences produce reasonably more reliable probabilistic information than divine revelation. Those are, quite frankly, facts. That's almost a universal consensus among educated people in Western society. Do oil companies hire geologists or oracles with divination rods? Are hospitals staffed with surgeons and people trained in the medical sciences, or professional pray-ers? When biologists use CRISPR in order to alter genes to produce artificial life or cure diseases, are they operating on faith? Not at all. The theory of evolution is just as reliable as gravity, albeit a lot more difficult to observe; but the empirical evidence is irrefutable, so much so that biologists who reject evolution are generally considered cranks or true believers.
Yes, you, say, but you have faith in science! Science might not work tomorrow! And it makes mistakes! And it's a practice by people who are flawed! That's faith.
Not really. Each one of these objections is a legitimate philosophical skepticism, and each of them has well-developed responses (too long to detail here), that are philosophical positions. And once you raise them, you are firmly in modern philosophy if you can let go of the notion that your first principles are metaphysical presumptions, not universal truths. That's the dividing line between theology and contemporary philosophy.
My advice to you is, if you're working hard to prove that scientific fact is just opinion, and that the scientific methods are some collective religion no different than religious mythology, then you get Robert Audi's Epistemology and begin a genuine study of epistemology. While most philosophers seem to disagree on most things, one thing they tend to agree on is that there are degrees of belief that culminate in certain knowledge. But the notion that all belief is faith is simply a naive philosophical position, and one that has been rejected repeatedly by some of the brightest thinkers over the last 500 years and produced the modern secular society replete with antibiotics, cars that drive themselves, supercomputers that can answer trivia questions better than people, tools for redesigning genes, rockets that land themselves, planes that fly themselves, ad nauseum. Simply put, humans continue to accrue reliable knowledge. And that's a fact.