Super interesting course content and laid-back class structure (a lot of the lecture will be spent discussing with the class). The only reason I give it a 3/5 on the easiness rating is because I reckon it's pretty hard to get an exceptional (90+ mark). However, it's easy to do decently well as long as you're engaging with the material. As someone who hadn't taken a course like this before, I was worried it was going to be too abstract for my understanding, but this definitely wasn't the case. The course content is very accessible to all academic backgrounds (hence no pre-reqs).

Arguments for and against the existence of God, along with discussion about what makes an argument rational.

Super laid-back professor that welcomes discussion and challenges on any of the arguments presented in class. Also explains concepts in a very clear way so that no matter what your discipline is, you'll have no problem understanding most of the content.

This is a pretty darn good PHIL class. Kraal is a great instructor, no surprises there. Area covered is huge, and hopefully it leaves you less certain about your initial thoughts on atheism vs. theism. Super neat if you approach things honestly.

Content works like this: first you tackle purely theistic arguments, then you start doing problem of evil, then get theist replies, then atheist replies to those replies. There's even modal logic in there. You write two exams, one paper, so really there is not a lot going on, work-wise. Take lecture notes with substantial detail and include every little detail you can because that's what'll put you in A territory on your exam. Merely getting things right doesn't net you an excellent grade. Content is diverse, as you cover such authors as William Lane Craig, Epicurus, Darwin, Hume, (lots of) Plantinga, Irvine (modal logic), Anselm, Kant, Russell, etc. There's a lot in the class but it's manageable because it's essentially a big old dialogue between the authors and the kinds of arguments the...read more

Dr. Kraal is great. He welcomes challenges to what he argues for or what he's explaining, provided they're smart and well-delivered. I had several conversations about authors' arguments or his own in class to dig deeper into their flaws or merits. It was really meritorious to do so, in my opinion, because it lent depth to certain points of the course so that I could give better exam answers and think about problems of religion in more depth. Dr. Kraal just knows how to make the class interesting and fun to take.

I recommend you take it and be realistic about challenging your assumptions. A lot will come down to your intuitions, but I think it's okay to keep your mind open and not dogmatic, especially if you're decidedly a theist or atheist. Exams are chilled out if you study well and take good notes. The paper was good fun, really not that hard when it came down to it, just make sure you do it enough in advance to get someone to peer-review it for you so that you can see if you've made it logical and grammatical.