According to your approach, if there is providence, then we should have seen that Haredim get less cancer, live longer, and so on.
But we don’t see that (on that I agree).

The argument is that if so many Haredim or Religious Zionists are sheltered under wicked worldviews that cause damage to the society they live in (Haredism, and perhaps even messianism, which you also criticize), then why expect there to be providence over them?
It’s obvious that we don’t see providence over them.

Oh, come on. What about the decent groups? And why don’t they get sicker because of their wickedness? And besides, providence is not expressed only in illness rates among Haredim or Religious Zionists.
Just empty hair-splitting.

What are "decent groups"?

I’m arguing that, aside from isolated cases (on the level of a few individuals), it’s impossible to know whether a certain group or a certain individual is considered righteous or not (same thing with wicked people). There’s also the issue of the environment a person grew up in. For example, if a wicked person was educated from infancy to behave wickedly, would he really be considered wicked in Heaven?

So this whole matter of heavenly calculations or providence is irrelevant. Everything is vague.

I recommend you watch the film "Cracked."

At your request, I’m copying the question over from another question:

In another question you raised, you wrote that it is reasonable that there would be providence over "decent groups."
You wrote, "What about the decent groups?"
But if I remember correctly, you hold, like I do, that it is almost never possible to know who is righteous (and all the accusations that come up nowadays against all sorts of religious "righteous people" prove that).

It follows from your words that there are groups that you do define as decent groups, and that it would have been reasonable for individual providence to apply to them (even though we don’t see it).
How do these things fit together — is it possible to know which groups or people are righteous, or is it impossible to measure?

Haredim actually do live longer…
https://www.ynet.co.il/article/4743064

Groups of religious people who are not Haredi and not Hardal are decent groups. There are also decent individuals whom one could have surveyed. You’re also ignoring the rest of my comments on this hair-splitting (for example, that we should have seen greater distress in those populations).

As for "decent individuals," over the past few years I’ve learned that no matter how much some rabbi or person (for example) seems righteous (= decent), it’s impossible to know whether he really is. I’m deliberately not mentioning names here, but I assume you can think, just from the recent period, of a certain number of names that everyone was sure were God-fearing people, and in the end it seems one can say that they were not, and not even close to being decent…

As for groups — here too it’s the same thing — you’re basically claiming that religious people who are not Haredi or Hardal (and probably not "lite" either) are actually the most righteous (= decent) people there are, because they also observe Torah and commandments (are committed to Jewish law) and also are not mistaken in their worldview (according to your approach, of course).

The assumption I derive from your words is that righteousness (= decency) can indeed be measured, both at the individual level and at the collective level. Am I mistaken, or did I understand correctly?

This discussion has become far too bizarre for me. With your permission, I’ll stop here.