Psychologically, the course's focus on the illusory nature of putting up with and the energy of the mind to generate fact could be equally liberating and probably dangerous. On one give, the proven fact that we can transcend suffering via a change in notion can enable persons to assume control of these emotional and emotional claims, fostering a feeling of firm and internal peace. On the other hand, this perception may result in a form of religious skipping, wherever individuals ignore or dismiss real-life problems and psychological pain beneath the guise of religious insight. By teaching that most negative activities are mere predictions of the pride, ACIM may accidentally encourage individuals to avoid handling underlying psychological dilemmas or participating with the real-world factors behind their distress. This process may be particularly harmful for people dealing with serious emotional health conditions, as it may reduce them from seeking necessary medical or healing interventions.

Empirically, there's little to no clinical evidence encouraging the metaphysical statements created by ACIM. The proven fact that the bodily world can be an dream created by our combined confidence lacks empirical support and ucdm counter to the large human anatomy of clinical understanding gathered through generations of observation and experimentation. While subjective experiences of transcendence and spiritual awareness are well-documented, they do not provide purpose proof the non-dualistic fact that ACIM describes. Moreover, the course's assertion that changing one's ideas can transform truth in a literal sense is reminiscent of the New Thought action and the more recent law of attraction, both of which have been criticized for lacking medical validity. The placebo effect and the ability of positive considering are well-documented phenomena, but they don't support the grand metaphysical states created by ACIM.

Furthermore, the sources of ACIM raise additional issues about its credibility. Helen Schucman, the psychologist who transcribed the program, described her experience as obtaining dictation from an interior style she discovered as Jesus. This method of channeled publishing is not unique to ACIM and can be found in various other spiritual and religious texts through the duration of history. The subjective nature of the activities causes it to be hard to confirm their authenticity. Critics disagree that such texts are more likely items of the subconscious brain as opposed to communications from the divine source. Schucman himself had a complex connection with the material, supposedly encountering significant internal struggle about their material and its sources, which brings yet another coating of ambiguity to the course's claims of divine authorship.

Additionally, the language and design of ACIM tend to be esoteric and abstract, making it hard for several viewers to know and apply their teachings. The course is prepared in a very stylized form of British, with dense, graceful prose that can be tough to interpret. This difficulty may cause a wide variety of understandings, some of that might diverge considerably from the intended message. The ambiguity of the writing allows for subjective parts, which may result in misunderstandings and misapplications of its principles. That not enough clarity can undermine the course's usefulness as a functional guide for religious growth and self-improvement.