From the theological perspective, ACIM diverges somewhat from orthodox Religious doctrine. Traditional Christianity is grounded in the belief of a transcendent God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the importance of the Bible as the best religious authority. ACIM, however, gift ideas a view of Lord and Jesus that varies markedly. It identifies Jesus not as the initial of but as one amongst many beings who've realized their correct nature included in God. This non-dualistic strategy, where Lord and creation are viewed as fundamentally one, contradicts the dualistic nature of conventional Religious theology, which considers Lord as distinctive from His creation. Additionally, ACIM downplays the significance of failure and the need for salvation through Jesus Christ's atonement, key tenets of Religious faith. Alternatively, it posits that failure is an illusion and that salvation is really a matter of repairing one's understanding of reality. That radical departure from recognized Religious beliefs leads many theologians to dismiss ACIM as heretical or incompatible with traditional Religious faith.

From a psychological standpoint, the roots of ACIM raise issues about its validity. Helen Schucman, the primary scribe of the text, stated that the words were formed to her by an internal style she discovered as Jesus. This technique of getting the text through inner dictation, referred to as channeling, is usually achieved with skepticism. Critics disagree that a course in miracles could be recognized as a mental sensation rather than a authentic spiritual revelation. Schucman herself was a scientific psychiatrist, and some claim that the style she noticed may have been a manifestation of her subconscious brain rather than an external heavenly entity. Also, Schucman stated ambivalence about the work and its roots, often pondering their authenticity herself. This ambivalence, in conjunction with the technique of the text's reception, portrays doubt on the legitimacy of ACIM as a divinely influenced scripture.

The content of ACIM also invites scrutiny from a philosophical angle. The class shows that the world we perceive with this feelings is definitely an dream and our true truth lies beyond this physical realm. This idealistic view, which echoes certain Western concepts, issues the materialistic and scientific foundations of Western thought. Experts argue that the declare that the physical world is an impression is not substantiated by scientific evidence and operates counter to the scientific process, which utilizes observable and measurable phenomena. The thought of an illusory earth might be compelling as a metaphor for the disturbances of understanding brought on by the vanity, but as a literal assertion, it lacks the empirical help required to be described as a valid illustration of reality.

Furthermore, the sensible request of ACIM's teachings could be problematic. The program advocates for a significant type of forgiveness, indicating that most issues are illusions and should be neglected and only knowing the natural unity of beings. As the practice of forgiveness may indeed be therapeutic and transformative, ACIM's approach might lead persons to suppress reliable feelings and dismiss actual injustices. By mounting all negative experiences as illusions developed by the confidence, there is a danger of reducing or invalidating the lived activities of putting up with and trauma. That perspective could be especially hazardous for individuals working with significant dilemmas such as punishment or oppression, as it may decrease them from seeking the required help and interventions.