Theologically, ACIM deviates somewhat from standard Christian doctrines, which portrays doubt on their legitimacy as a religious text declaring to be authored by Jesus Christ. Popular Christianity is built on the teachings of the Bible, which assert the truth of crime, the requisite of Christ's atoning lose, and the importance of trust in Jesus for salvation. ACIM, however, denies the truth of sin, seeing it alternatively as a misperception, and dismisses the requirement for atonement through Christ's lose, advocating as an alternative for an individual awareness to the natural divine character within each individual. That revolutionary departure from orthodox Religious values increases questions about the reliability of ACIM's supposed divine source. If the teachings of ACIM contradict the primary tenets of Christianity, it becomes complicated to reconcile their statements with the recognized spiritual custom it purports to arrange with.

Psychologically, the course's focus on the illusory character of putting up with and the ability of the mind to produce fact can be equally delivering and possibly dangerous. Using one hand, the idea that we are able to surpass enduring by way of a shift in understanding can inspire people to seize control of the emotional and psychological states, fostering a sense of firm and inner peace. On one other hand, this perception may lead to a questionnaire of spiritual bypassing, wherever people ignore or dismiss real-life problems and psychological suffering beneath the guise of spiritual insight. By teaching that most negative activities are pure projections of the vanity, ACIM may possibly unintentionally encourage individuals to avoid addressing main mental problems or interesting with the real-world reasons for their distress. This process could be specially hazardous for people working with significant psychological wellness problems, as it may reduce them from seeking necessary medical or therapeutic interventions.

Empirically, there is small to number medical evidence supporting the metaphysical claims made by ACIM. The indisputable fact that the physical world is an dream created by our combined confidence lacks scientific support and goes counter to the great body of scientific understanding accumulated through acim ages of statement and experimentation. While subjective activities of transcendence and religious awareness are well-documented, they do not provide target evidence of the non-dualistic fact that ACIM describes. Furthermore, the course's assertion that changing one's feelings may adjust reality in a literal feeling is similar to the New Thought action and the more new law of appeal, both of which have been criticized for missing clinical validity. The placebo effect and the power of positive thinking are well-documented phenomena, but they do not support the fantastic metaphysical claims made by ACIM.

Moreover, the beginnings of ACIM raise extra issues about their credibility. Helen Schucman, the psychologist who transcribed the program, explained her experience as obtaining dictation from an internal voice she identified as Jesus. This technique of channeled writing is not unique to ACIM and are available in various other spiritual and spiritual texts through the duration of history. The subjective character of the experiences helps it be hard to validate their authenticity. Authorities fight that such texts are more likely products of the unconscious mind rather than communications from the divine source. Schucman himself had a complex connection with the product, supposedly experiencing significant internal conflict about their material and its roots, which provides another layer of ambiguity to the course's statements of heavenly authorship.