Well, it's not my belief that revelation is the only way to have truths revealed about life. God is another narrative, it's a story I can appreciate, but that I don't believe in.

Maybe! However, I would tend to think these -isms are more defined than ietsism, which picks out that supremely (and seemingly deliberately) vague, unhelpful, and frustrating reply that one's typical fellow apes give in response to whether they believe in God: "I think there must be something out there," "I believe in a higher power," or "I think there's something bigger than myself." These phrases are fit to make any philosopher fly into a rage, but they represent, in my view, the extent to which people have pondered anything metaphysical and make up the predominant belief of most people today, at least in the industrialized world. — Thorongil

You may be too quick to dismiss these people. I've found that most people can explain what they believe, and why, if given the chance.

Religion is a type of philosophy...

And vice versa — TheMadFool

How so?

The formulation of your question combined with your desire to not establish a definition right away tells me that you are probably more interested in discussing the relation between the two concepts instead of their differences.
I see it like this.
We live in a world where we observe many phenomena and we are trying to understand what causes them to happen like they do. Thus, human kind, knowing little about its reality, has came up with many hypotheses for what could be causing those phenomena to exist. The more elegant hypotheses came to be the main religions we know today. It is important to note that those hypotheses can only be compared to one another by what we call their elegance, since they purely are the product of our imagination. (By that, I don't imply they are wrong). Throughout history, practically everyone sought confort in showing faith for a religion or another.
While everyone was confortably believing in certain things, some guys began to think it would be useful to add rigor to people's lines of reasonning. Thus, they began the practice of a new sport: philosophy. The goal was to reason about things while respecting some concepts such as logic and coherence. With only those simple rules, philosophy came to be what we know of it today.
To summarize, I would state it like this:
Philosophy is a way of reasonning about things while a religion is an hypothesis developped in order to try and explain our reality.

The faithful say its revelation, and they believe it's true. I don't doubt their belief, do you? — Cavacava

I don't doubt their belief, I doubt their claim of having possession of the truth.

Religious 'truth' I think is existential truth or troth, in the sense of fidelity to what one believes.

Does truth need faith, or does faith need truth?

I think for the religious, truth needs faith

How so? Tell me what you think. Stop speaking for others.

The truths that religions tell are not always easy to take. "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.", it takes faith.

I really don't know. I am an agnostic, but I grow up in a Faith which I practiced, until I no longer believed in it, but who knows, it certainly seems to propel some people through life. I read & think about it but I have no commitment at this point.

What about you Heister?

How so? — Jeremiah

Religion is an attempt by the rational mind to make sense of life, the universe. Isn't that philosophy?

Vice versa

So then you see no difference between religion and philosophy?

Of course there are differences between the two.

Actually I think the relationship between the two can be described as below...

Philosophy is the question

And

Religion is one of the answers

...even though nowadays, few seem to be satisfied with the answer

The truths that religions tell are not always easy to take. — Cavacava

Perhaps because they're wrong? Are you stopping on the threshold of having faith merely because it's hard, or is there a degree of doubt in your mind that you might be wrong in choosing to have one faith over another?

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.", it takes faith. — Cavacava

How so?

I really don't know. I am an agnostic, but I grow up in a Faith which I practiced, until I no longer believed in it, but who knows, it certainly seems to propel some people through life. I read & think about it but I have no commitment at this point. — Cavacava

I also was raised in "faith". When I was younger, though, I realized that I didn't really have faith, I merely believed in my belief. I was wrestling more with whether my "faith" (belief) was true, whatever that entailed, rather than if my conception of "God" did or did not exist. As I've grown older, however, neither faith, nor any understanding of God that I've come across, has made me change my opinion all that much.

I don't know what religious background you've come from, but I remember telling Agustino (to his confusion) that I see myself as being Christian, but a Christian. I find there to be truths within the New Testament, but I don't think that the New Testament is the truth, just as I might agree with this or that Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox bit of theology, yet am not, therefore, a Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian...or a Buddhist, Sufist, etc.

I'll say of myself that I've committed to the truth. This doesn't mean I have to commit to having faith in a "truth", though.

"few seem to be satisfied with the answer"

Probably because they are empty phrases without any real meaning. I think you just say things because you like the way it sounds.

I believe that the differences in philosophy, religion, and science for that matter, is the degree of faith that an individual places in the process. A religious person might still be always asking the next question, while a philosopher or scientist can become quite dogmatic about their faith in their own brief system. Ditto for a philosopher or scientist. I have found that there is no set way to define a person by the group that he or she chooses to belong to. As always, the individual defines who he or she is. The group is a device for further inquiry or immobility, as the person sees fit.

Yes, as we all know religion is never dogmatic.

Depending upon the religion, it may be characterized as more or less dogmatic. This is totally dependent upon the nature of the local group. For example, Universalist-Unitarian groups and individuals may be far more open to new ideas than a group of Skeptics. It all depends.

Depending upon the religion — Rich

Several religious groups are extremely dogmatic. I don't think you can single out science or philosophy on this one.

You may be too quick to dismiss these people. — anonymous66

Dismissing the herd can never be done too quickly. Although I generally try to ignore it and let it stampede in ignorance.

I think that what is most striking in difference between religion and philosophy is in the approach to faith. Faith, like the two aforementioned terms, cannot be easily defined without ignoring important shades of meaning which the word takes on. It's a practice, it's a type of belief, it's a state of mind, it's a value, it's many things.

But in a religion what it does is different from what it does in a philosophy -- in a religion faith is a justification. But in philosophy, while faith can play as motive, it can never be provided as a justification. It may be an (honest, admitted) reason for a stance to some interlocutor or audience, but the expectations of philosophy is that in addressing said audience you will not expect faith to compel said audience to whatever it is you are proposing.

I agree. One cannot single out one type of group as being more or less dogmatic. It varies by degree and where the dogma is taught.

I think that what is most striking in difference between religion and philosophy is in the approach to faith. Faith, like the two aforementioned terms, cannot be easily defined without ignoring important shades of meaning which the word takes on. It's a practice, it's a type of belief, it's a state of mind, it's a value, it's many things.

But in a religion what it does is different from what it does in a philosophy -- in a religion faith is a justification. But in philosophy, while faith can play as motive, it can never be provided as a justification. It may be an (honest, admitted) reason for a stance to some interlocutor or audience, but the expectations of philosophy is that in addressing said audience you will not expect faith to compel said audience to whatever it is you are proposing. — Moliere

I agree to an extent. But now we are talking more about style rather than substance. Hence, the dogma is there it is just we don't publically call it dogma or admit to it. Instead we might call it foundational or a core belief system.

Lord Agu. — Heister Eggcart

I don't know what religious background you've come from, but I remember telling Agustino (to his confusion) that I see myself as being Christian, but a Christian. — Heister Eggcart

Thou shalt not take the LORD's name in vain :-* Have you forgotten that commandment? :P

Probably because they are empty phrases without any real meaning. — Jeremiah

Don't be so quick to judge. Perhaps there's a grain of truth hidden somewhere.

I think you just say things because you like the way it sounds. — Jeremiah

You're right but I try to be truthful.

Perhaps there's a grain of truth hidden somewhere — TheMadFool

There is a grain of truth in every vague ill-defined statement. For example: It is best in the winter.

There is a grain of truth in every vague ill-defined statement. For example: It is best in the winter. — Jeremiah

Assuming I understand you correctly, what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness? And how does religion fail?

<insert witty quip here>

Assuming I understand you correctly, what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness? And how does religion fail? — TheMadFool

"what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness"

You want me to type out a book? I don't really think I could sufficiently answer that question on an internet forum.

"And how does religion fail?"

Never said it fails.

You want me to type out a book? I don't really think I could sufficiently answer that question on an internet forum — Jeremiah

Sometimes a single word may describe an entire book e.g. The Bible can be represented by the word ''hogwash'' to an atheist and ''God'' to a theist. Can you not express your views in a paragraph or so?

Never said it fails. — Jeremiah

What's the difference between religion and philosophy?