> for religious people there is only the single factor, and it let's them do what op did by positioning actual expertise under their personal beliefs.

It's difficult to discern precisely the claim you're making, but it is suggestive, something to the effect that all religious people reduce all good events to miraculous acts. If that is the case, then you are misinformed and - it would seem - painting all "religious" people with the same broad brush. I would strongly recommend looking at something like JPII's encyclical "Fides et Ratio" [0].

As the OP would appear to be a Christian, I will say that according to a robust and mature Christian understanding of the world and its relation to God, there is a distinction between what are called primary causality and secondary causality. While all that exists is granted its existence and causal power by God (primary causality), within the created order and thus within the domain of secondary causes, things operate as genuine causes. This is not some kind of occasionalism where the world is more or less a kind of cosmic puppet theater. So there is no contradiction between gratitude for, say, a doctor's successful intervention and the divine cause that enables it, even when nothing miraculous has occurred (whether quoad substantiam, quoad subjectum, or quoad modum et ordinem).

> i agree that this type of cope may actually be useful, though, it's just insulting at the same time.

I suppose understanding this latter sentence presupposes understanding the first, but I would point back to the division of causal orders above, and perhaps be mindful of superbia vitae.

[0] https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...