Psychologically, the course's emphasis on the illusory nature of putting up with and the ability of your head to generate fact may be both issuing and possibly dangerous. On one hand, the indisputable fact that we could surpass suffering through a shift in perception can inspire persons to seize control of these mental and emotional claims, fostering an expression of agency and inner peace. On another hand, this perspective may lead to a questionnaire of religious bypassing, where individuals ignore or ignore real-life issues and emotional pain beneath the guise of spiritual insight. By teaching that negative experiences are pure projections of the pride, ACIM may inadvertently encourage people in order to avoid handling main psychological problems or interesting with the real-world factors behind their distress. This method could be especially harmful for persons dealing with critical emotional health problems, as it can prevent them from seeking essential medical or healing interventions.

Empirically, there is small to no medical evidence supporting the metaphysical statements produced by ACIM. The idea that the bodily earth is definitely an illusion created by our collective ego lacks empirical help and operates counter to the large human body of scientific information gathered through centuries of remark and experimentation. While subjective activities of transcendence and spiritual awareness are well-documented, they don't provide aim evidence of the non-dualistic fact that david hoffmeiste ACIM describes. Additionally, the course's assertion that adjusting one's feelings may modify fact in a literal sense is similar to the New Thought motion and the more recent legislation of interest, equally of which were criticized for missing medical validity. The placebo effect and the energy of positive considering are well-documented phenomena, but they cannot help the great metaphysical states produced by ACIM.

Furthermore, the origins of ACIM raise additional questions about their credibility. Helen Schucman, the psychiatrist who transcribed the course, explained her knowledge as getting dictation from an interior voice she discovered as Jesus. This process of channeled publishing is not unique to ACIM and are available in many other religious and spiritual texts throughout history. The subjective character of these experiences causes it to be difficult to verify their authenticity. Critics disagree that such texts are much more likely products and services of the subconscious brain as opposed to communications from a divine source. Schucman herself had a complex relationship with the product, supposedly experiencing significant inner struggle about its content and its beginnings, which provides another layer of ambiguity to the course's statements of divine authorship.

Furthermore, the language and style of ACIM are often clever and abstract, making it difficult for many visitors to comprehend and use their teachings. The class is prepared in a very stylized form of British, with heavy, lyrical prose that can be tough to interpret. That complexity may lead to a wide variety of understandings, a few of which can diverge significantly from the intended message. The ambiguity of the writing provides for subjective readings, which can result in misunderstandings and misapplications of their principles. That insufficient quality can undermine the course's efficiency as a functional manual for religious growth and self-improvement.