How Does G-d Fit Into the Picture?

People tend to refer to something as "hashgacha pratis" (individual, specific supervision by Hashem) when it stands out, when in truth, every single thing is under Hashem's hashgacha pratis, not only amazing occurrences. 

Furthermore, people tend to refer to something as "hashgacha pratis" when it works out well, when it truth, everything that happens, whether it seems good or not, is under Hashem's hashgacha pratis. 

To give a common example, whether someone misses a flight and it crashes or someone doesn't miss a flight and it crashes, both are hashgacha pratis.

We need to establish these as the ground rules because otherwise, for one thing, we will have the wrong outlook.  For another thing, we can end up hearing heretical ideas presented as logic and be convinced that it's reasonable. 

I'm thinking about this because of a chapter in a book I'm reading which is about how human nature is such that we focus on those things that fit our premise and ignore the rest.  We like to see patterns and so we attribute meaning to certain events whether a pattern may be there or not. 

Where the chapter went wrong, from a Jewish perspective, is when the author made it clear that he doesn't think G-d is running the world.  It's not that he says so explicitly. What he says is our minds reject randomness.  But one minute, Judaism rejects randomness! And yet, even as believing Jews, we don't say on a clear day, "Wow, I was walking down the street and no tree limbs fell on me" or "I wasn't struck by lightening."  Why don't we say that? Because on a clear day, there is no reason to expect that those events will occur, and although we believe Hashem oversees every detail, we know that He wants the world to run by teva-nature.  The reason humans look for patterns is because we innately know that G-d created the world and there is a seder here.  So the author is correct in that we sometimes attribute meaning to something that is not statistically meaningful (akin to expressing amazement about not being struck by lightening on a clear day), but he is wrong when he says everything is random!

I find this perturbing not only because he's wrong, but because he is not being intellectually honest in a book that is about how we delude ourselves! There are things in our world which are statistically rare and make no sense logically and yet he does not acknowledge this.  In the author's atheistic worldview, he must believe that all is random.  It is disturbing to pick up a book that is ostensibly objective but actually has a distinct, anti-G-d bias.