Theologically, ACIM deviates somewhat from traditional Religious doctrines, which portrays uncertainty on their legitimacy as a religious text declaring to be authored by Jesus Christ. Main-stream Christianity is made on the teachings of the Bible, which assert the reality of failure, the prerequisite of Christ's atoning compromise, and the importance of faith in Jesus for salvation. ACIM, however, denies the fact of failure, seeing it as an alternative as a misperception, and dismisses the need for atonement through Christ's compromise, advocating alternatively for an individual awareness to the inherent heavenly nature within each individual. This revolutionary departure from orthodox Christian beliefs raises questions about the authenticity of ACIM's proposed divine source. If the teachings of ACIM contradict the primary tenets of Christianity, it becomes challenging to reconcile its statements with the recognized spiritual convention it purports to align with.

Psychologically, the course's focus on the illusory nature of suffering and the ability of your head to produce truth could be both publishing and perhaps dangerous. On a single hand, the indisputable fact that we are able to transcend enduring by way of a change in understanding can empower people to seize control of the emotional a course in miracles and psychological states, fostering a sense of agency and internal peace. On another hand, that perception may cause a form of religious bypassing, wherever people ignore or dismiss real-life problems and psychological pain under the guise of religious insight. By teaching that most bad experiences are mere predictions of the vanity, ACIM might unintentionally encourage people in order to avoid approaching underlying mental problems or participating with the real-world reasons for their distress. This process could be particularly harmful for persons working with critical emotional wellness situations, as it may reduce them from seeking essential medical or healing interventions.

Empirically, there's little to number medical evidence promoting the metaphysical claims produced by ACIM. The proven fact that the physical earth is an impression produced by our combined ego lacks empirical help and works table to the great human body of scientific information gathered through generations of statement and experimentation. While subjective activities of transcendence and spiritual awakening are well-documented, they do not give goal proof the non-dualistic reality that ACIM describes. More over, the course's assertion that adjusting one's feelings can adjust reality in a literal sense is similar to the New Thought action and the more new law of appeal, equally of which were criticized for lacking medical validity. The placebo influence and the power of good considering are well-documented phenomena, but they do not help the fantastic metaphysical statements made by ACIM.

Moreover, the origins of ACIM raise extra questions about its credibility. Helen Schucman, the psychiatrist who transcribed the program, identified her experience as getting dictation from an interior style she determined as Jesus. This method of channeled writing isn't distinctive to ACIM and can be found in many other spiritual and religious texts through the duration of history. The subjective character of those experiences makes it hard to verify their authenticity. Experts argue that such texts are more likely products of the unconscious mind as opposed to communications from the heavenly source. Schucman herself had a sophisticated relationship with the substance, reportedly experiencing substantial inner struggle about its material a