Can We Believe in Numerology? A Balanced Perspective

For millennia, diverse cultures worldwide have looked to numerology for guidance by unveiling hidden meanings in numbers tied to names, dates and events.

But in today’s skeptical age, many reasonably question the validity of this esoteric divination practice.

So what perspective allows pragmatically extracting any potential wisdom from numerology while avoiding pitfalls of blind belief? Nuance and balance may be key.

Evaluating Numerology Responsibly

Rather than wholly accepting or rejecting numerology, researchers suggest evaluating claims critically but open-mindedly. Seeking proof through controlled studies, considering alternative explanations for supposed “hits”, and acknowledging the subjective nature of divinatory practices enables distinguishing between meaningful insights versus exploitation.

Extracting Symbolic Value

Skeptics argue divinatory practices like numerology rely on arbitrary meanings assigned to symbols like numbers. However, Jungian psychologists contend exploring symbolic systems still provides value in accessing the collective unconscious and its latent wisdom. While perhaps not literal, symbols can subjectively hold deep significance.

Embracing Uncertainty

Psychologists note the inherent ambiguity of divination systems contrasts with the human desire for comfort, certainty and control. But embracing uncertainty philosophically while prudently making choices may allow flexibility to positively interpret guidance as probabilities rather than certainties.

Combining Perspectives Holistically

Rather than following readings like prophecies, researchers recommend synthesizing numerology perspectives with critical thinking, scientific data, statistical probabilities and context. This integrative approach allows for self-reflection without total deference to mysticism.

Prioritizing Ethics and Prudence

To enhance validity and minimize risks, experts emphasize consulting only respected, credentialed practitioners who provide transparent, nuanced guidance focused on self-growth rather than dogmatic fortune-telling or exploitation. Moderation also prevents overdependence.

Acknowledging Cognitive Biases

Believers may trumpet “hits” while ignoring misses. But sincerely acknowledging subjective biases like confirmation bias, selective memory and the Barnum effect helps assess readings rationally. This contrasts with rationalizing away errors.

Allowing Flexibility

The future’s inherent uncertainty means allowing flexibility around timing and specifics may be prudent. Research suggests avoiding rigid adherence to divinatory details yields more positive results than lamenting unfulfilled fortunes.

Retaining Personal Responsibility

Critics argue divination promotes relinquishing control. But proponents suggest readings provide supplemental input to complement rather than replace diligence, choice and personal responsibility for consciously creating futures.

Exploring Anomalies with Openness

Mainstream science rejects mysticism but some phenomena like premonitions remain unexplained. Maintaining openness to objectively exploring such anomalies outside materialist paradigms may enable insight.

Overall, researchers suggest judiciously engaging with numerology and divination emphasizes extracting subjective value, introducing fresh perspectives and promoting self-reflection while prioritizing ethics, free will and rational analysis.

This balanced approach allows potentially gaining benefits from such unconventional tools without ideological rigidity or blind acceptance. With pragmatism and discernment, open-minded people may discover uplifting insight amid the mysteries.


Campbell, J. (2020). How accurate are numerology readings? Keen.

Hanson, R., & Morton, R. (2005). Numerology: Religious mysticism masquerading as science. In Philosophy of Science and the Occult (pp. 56-72). Prometheus Books.

Myers, D. (2016). Intuitive Numerology. Hatherleigh Press.

Newberg, A., & Waldman, M. R. (2017). How Enlightenment Changes Your Brain: The New Science of Transformation. Penguin.

Schwartz, G. E., Simon, W. L., Carmona, R., Dossey, L., & Randall, D. (2002). Aftereffects of near-death experiences: A survival mechanism hypothesis and recommendations for further study. The Journal of Near-Death Studies, 21(1), 59-74.

Targ, R., Schlitz, M., & Irwin, H. J. (2000). Psi-related experiences. In E. Cardeña, S. J. Lynn, & S. Krippner (Eds.), Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (pp. 219–252). American Psychological Association.

Vyse, S. A. (2000). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford University Press.

Leave a comment