Psychologically, the course's emphasis on the illusory nature of enduring and the ability of the mind to create truth could be equally delivering and possibly dangerous. Using one give, the indisputable fact that we could surpass enduring via a shift in perception may inspire people to take control of these intellectual and mental states, fostering a sense of organization and internal peace. On the other give, this perception may cause a form of spiritual bypassing, wherever individuals dismiss or ignore real-life problems and psychological suffering underneath the guise of religious insight. By training that all negative activities are simple forecasts of the ego, ACIM may possibly accidentally encourage persons in order to avoid handling underlying mental problems or participating with the real-world factors behind their distress. This approach may be specially hazardous for individuals dealing with critical emotional wellness problems, as it can prevent them from seeking required medical or healing interventions.

Empirically, there is small to no clinical evidence encouraging the metaphysical claims made by ACIM. The indisputable fact that the physical earth is definitely an dream created by our combined pride lacks empirical help and runs counter to the huge human body of clinical knowledge gathered through ages of observation and experimentation. While subjective activities of transcendence and spiritual awakening are well-documented, they don't provide aim proof of the non-dualistic truth that ACIM describes. Moreover, the course's assertion that changing one's feelings may modify truth in a literal acim is reminiscent of the New Thought action and the more recent legislation of interest, equally of which have been criticized for missing medical validity. The placebo impact and the ability of good considering are well-documented phenomena, but they cannot support the grand metaphysical statements made by ACIM.

More over, the roots of ACIM increase additional questions about their credibility. Helen Schucman, the psychologist who transcribed the program, described her knowledge as receiving dictation from an interior voice she identified as Jesus. This method of channeled publishing isn't distinctive to ACIM and are available in several other spiritual and religious texts during history. The subjective nature of the experiences causes it to be hard to examine their authenticity. Authorities fight that such texts are more likely items of the subconscious brain as opposed to communications from the divine source. Schucman herself had a complicated relationship with the material, supposedly encountering substantial inner struggle about their material and its origins, which gives still another coating of ambiguity to the course's states of heavenly authorship.

Furthermore, the language and design of ACIM are often esoteric and abstract, which makes it burdensome for many readers to understand and use its teachings. The course is written in a highly stylized type of English, with thick, lyrical prose which can be demanding to interpret. This difficulty may lead to a wide range of understandings, a number of which can diverge somewhat from the intended message. The ambiguity of the text permits subjective readings, which can result in misunderstandings and misapplications of its principles. That insufficient quality may undermine the course's success as a functional guide for spiritual development and self-improvement.