One need not read long books by 19th Century Russian authors (who also have long names) to ponder the basic questions of the existence of suffering in this world with the assumption that God is ultimately in control (aka we are "under" [insert pronoun here] as schoolchildren daily say as part of "patriotic" rituals). As with the five year old who asks "who created God," or the Native American child who is told that the world is on the top of a bunch of turtles, and wonders what the last turtle is on, the questions are rather basic. Life is rather basic on some level. Our ability to make it complicated might be a reflection of our abilities, but that's another story.
Or, rather, part of the issue here. Bart D. Ehrman is a religious scholar and former pastor/evangelist sort who is the type that lead some to fear too much knowledge. For instance, his past works underlined the fact we "misquote" Jesus all the time, in part because our basic source of what he really said (the New Testament) was the result of various authors. The writing down of which was a rather haphazard process, even if we truly knew what they were trying to say at a distance of two thousand years. Not that the results cannot be useful or even entertaining (Ehrman enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, even if he wrote a book to underline its not to be taken seriously as fact). You should just not take it quite as seriously as some do.
Ehrman's path has led him from pastor to agnostic, which seems logical to me, but others with the same knowledge have gone another way. So, it's not compelled or anything, though I must admit that his p.o.v. works for me. Bias alert, perhaps. Anyway, his most recent book is God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. There appears to be four basic "solutions" here: suffering is punishment for our sins, suffering is a test of some sort, suffering exists but eventually God/Jesus will win, and suffering just is/so just accept it. Two strands of the last one: (1) how dare you peon mortals question God's plan, just look at what he did for you and how ignorant you are etc. (2) c'est la vie, so try to make the best of it.* He prefers this last one.
Ehrman isn't impressed with most of this. He sprinkles the book with descriptions of various suffering in the world, including of small children (also a technique in The Brothers Karamazov), which makes God look like a monster. Some test! What did they do wrong? etc. The idea that things will get better in some distant future (Paul et. al. thought it would be rather soon, and looked at things through a different physical universe, one where disease often was caused by demons etc.) also does not impress. It also is a bit of a cheat -- we don't understand a lot, but we do know that will happen. Why exactly? Because if not, things will be lousy? As to free will, which is not a major theme in the Bible according to the book, the payoff again seems unbalanced.
The "apocalyptic" view (shared by Jesus and Paul) is problematic in another way. This view doesn't really explain suffering per se -- it assumes that there is evil in the world, the evil forces (e.g., the demons who cause disease in the NT) causes suffering, but we have that turtle problem again. Why did God (assumed to be all powerful) allow the evil out in the first place? Some basically suggest God isn't all powerful. There is a fight between good and evil, God might be a great help here especially if you are suffering, but something of a fair fight it is. Ehrman isn't really comfortable about such an imperfect God (he is more of a GOD person), but maybe deep down, this is more sensible.
Myths of an imperfect set of gods are more logical to me than trying to make suffering good somehow, when God is supposed to be all powerful. Ehrman notes that the free will argument is not really expressed too much in the Bible, nor the idea that suffering is good for character. Since both don't work for me -- but hey, I didn't create the world (just was "given" reason etc.), what do I know -- suffering still seems cruel, if God has the ability to do something differently. We do not really have complete free will by any means -- we have drives and so forth -- and there should not be a "in for an inch, in for a kilometer" rule here in which there cannot be inherent limits without free will being of little value.
Those who wrote the Bible basically assumed the existence of a beneficent deity, but like the complications needed to explain a system where the sun revolves around the earth, matching that up to reality is hard work. The earned suffering bit really gets me -- at various times, one hears of faith being threatened because of some personal calamity. How can God cause my loved one so much pain? How egotistical! How about all those who suffered before and during that pain? Ditto the idea that Israel fell because of wrongdoing. Were the people who lived when it thrived really so much better? Bluntly speaking, no matter how understanding we can be here, the basis of the sentiment here is flimsy.
Ehrman's bottom line is that suffering exists, we need to do the best we can amidst it (he has a pretty enjoyable life ... even if thanking God for it seemed off once he realized that meant God selectively made it that enjoyable for some strange reason), but biblical "explanations" leave a lot to be desired. Some aspects are quite humane in that they are serious about evildoing or compassionate about the needs and hurts of humankind, and Ecclesiastes has the right idea that all is fleeting, so let's enjoy it (but not recklessly) as we can. But, finding some deep reason "why," some ultimate meaning behind it all ... well, good luck there.**
---
* The first is found in the "poetry" strand of the book of Job, which appears to be a combination of two stories, the book-ends more prosaic and a reflection of the "test" angle. The second is found in Ecclesiastes. The book was perhaps written as late as the third century, which makes sense, since his summary suggests a Greek philosophy flavor, "in all things moderation" and such. The book presumes a God, but the opening is there to make the deity a lot less meaningful than other books in the Bible suggest.
** Here is part of one criticism of the book via a Google search:
When we understand that suffering is a direct result of human rebellion against God, only then are we properly equipped to understand that suffering may have many ends and that it may accomplish many purposes. When we understand that God is in control of this world, we realize that there is no such thing as meaningless, purposeless suffering. Everything that happens does so under the sovereign control of a good and just God.
How do we understand that? Is it some sort of given? Likewise, again, why punish children for such rebellion? What did they do wrong? The review claims the author at various points "refers to no authority other than his own" while other times suggests Ehrman (in a relatively short book for the general reader) uses the wrong scholars (aka ones that don't agree with the critic) -- what is it? The critic praises his knowledge, except to the extent it leads to conclusions that run counter to what he understands. This is sadly not atypical in this context.