I think to get through these difficulties nowadays the best idea is to trust in God and learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. [But I do not think one should be paid for teaching or learning Torah.]
How to go about this I am not sure. Since God has granted to me a few of the volumes I finding it helpful to do a little review.   

In the Musar movement

In the Musar movement that began with Rav Israel Salanter you see that each one of his disciples had a different emphasis. [Musar means Morals. It is an approach that emphasizes learning four basic medieval books on Ethics.]
Trust in God was the thing by Navardok. "Seder" [Order] for Rav Simha Zisel. Fear of God for Rav Isaac Blasser. Good Character "midot tovot"  was clearly the beginning and probably was the thing emphasized by Rav Salanter himself.

I have to say I was mostly effected by Navardok and Rav Isaac Blasser's approach.

One thing is that you see Rav Israel himself wanted just that people should learn Musar and find for themselves what is necessary for their souls.

There is a remarkable insight in the Musar Movement in itself -the essential aspect of good character as being the main thrust of what the Law of God asks from you.

One thing about Musar is that it got to be used for money as learning Torah did also. It seems to me that it makes no sense to use to the Torah to make money. [My basic sympathy goes along with the idea that some have already said that Torah should not be used as a means to be making a living. And that people that give just encourage this kind of abuse of Torah. One ought to learn Torah but not do so for money, nor be paid.] Paying people to learn Torah just encourages the Torah scholars that are already demons just to get more power.]

Alexander Pruss on Godel

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/search/label/Goedel

"Famously, Goedel’s incompleteness theorems refuted (naive) logicism, the view that mathematical truth is just provability.

But one doesn’t need all of the technical machinery of the incompleteness theorems to refute that. All one needs is Goedel’s simple but powerful insight that proofs are themselves mathematical objects—sequence of symbols (an insight emphasized by Goedel numbering). For once we see that, then the logicist view is that what makes a mathematical proposition true is that a certain kind of mathematical object—a proof—exists. But the latter claim is itself a mathematical claim, and so we are off on a vicious regress."

However I want to add that the idea of David Hilbert was to get to the basic axioms that Mathematics and Physics. Not that he was saying that those axioms could be proved. Leonard Nelson applied this idea to philosophy also. That is the point that Dr. Kelley Ross makes that to avoid a regress of reason one needs to start with immediate non-intuitive knowledge. However Dr Michael Huemer has a way of getting out of this problem by means of the idea that reason is just a faculty that recognizes universals. Not that reason is infallible. And the way it recognizes universals in by probability--not infallibility. [See his treatment of these issue.]  

"God created evil." Isaiah 45:7

The verse in Isaiah was pointed out where it says that "God created evil." But just to answer the issue I should add that when it comes to things beyond my understanding I defer to Kant about the things in themselves. That would be everything beyond the possibility of experience.
However, I am not saying 100% like Kant, because I think the limit that Kant places on Reason can be pushed back. This is the way I understood Hegel based on my reading of McTaggart on his Logic.

[This issue came up in http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/ who is a philosopher who I think is from the Analytic school. So I just added my comment there and thought also to post it here.]

I want to add that Steven Dutch was asked this and he answered that a lot of people have thought about this problem called the problem of evil.
Steven Dutch:

"How Can a Good God Permit Evil in the World?

An iceberg is a floating mountain of ice with most of its mass hidden below the surface. This question is more like a floating mountain of Styrofoam, with a tiny portion deep and hidden, and the vast majority on the surface and mostly made of air.

Lots of good, even great, books have been written on the deep and hidden aspects of this question. (One respondent asked me for references on this subject. The Library of Congress category for philosophy and theology is call letter B. The technical term for the question of good and evil is theodicy. I just searched it on Google and got 393,000 hits. Happy reading.) But if you are reading those books, you don't ask this question the way it is so often casually asked. Most people, when they ask this question, really mean something like:How could a good God disturb my comfort by confronting me with the existence of evil?How could a good God permit my sense of security to be violated by allowing evil to happen to others?Understanding this issue is really difficult. How could a good God create a world in which I have to think?

Dr Kelley Ross also treats this issue where he goes along with Schopenhauer. 

Some areas where critique on the Christian point of view makes sense.

There are some areas where critique on the Christian point of view makes sense. You never see anywhere that Jesus claims to be God. [He refers to the coming of the "son of man." [no capital letters in Greek.] Not the "son of God."] You never see him nullify the commandments. However there is a point about him even if some people get things wrong.  Some err on the side of over-doing. Others err on the side of under-doing.  It is hard to hold a middle point of view.
But even those that err on the side of under-doing accept his basic points. For some reason, he was able to embed in the human psyche the idea that the perfect person is the good and kind person. So when people ask, "How can Jesus be okay when such and such of his followers act not nicely?" they are implicitly accepting what he said.




He was to borrow a phrase from Allan Bloom a "civilization founding person."

[Critique on Jesus almost always means critique on Paul.]

On the critical side I want to say that אהיה אשר אהיה "I will be that which I will be" the name of God, is not the same as "I am". So even if the phrase of Jesus "I am" is hard to understand, still it is not the same as the name of God. ["I am before Abraham" in the Ancient Greek.]

The positive side is easy to see based on the idea of Rav Nahman about the importance of belief in a "true saint". [That is a theme in the book of Rav Nahman, the LeM.]

w63 A major

Girsa" [saying the words and going on]

The way of learning of "Girsa" [saying the words and going on] is very different from what people experience in school. The reason is that in school there is an emphasis on tests.

There is aspects of tests that are good. They show to oneself what he or she is good at and thus spend effort in that direction.

On the other hand the emphasis on tests does not take into account the idea that some things are important to learn whether one is good at them or not.

So when I say that people ought to learn Physics and Mathematics in this way of "Girsa" [just say the words from the beginning to the end of the book], I am not saying that everyone will become geniuses because of this. 

But I still think after doing this with any text of Physics four times, from beginning to end, the effect will be such that even people that imagine that they are not talented will discover that they are a lot more talented than they thought.

[I am going here with the idea that the Ten Commandments are contained in the Ten Statements of Creation [See the commentary of the Gra on Pirkei Avot V.]. So the Law of Moses in contained in a hidden way in the Work of Creation. In some way, you can see this in the Gemara itself. "R. Yohanan ben Zacai knew the Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot." You can see this theme a lot in Rav Nahman of Breslov' s LeM.]
טבעו בארץ ששעריה "The gates of Torah are sunken into the Earth". That is towards the end of volume I of the LeM. But there are plenty of hints to this all throughout the LeM--if one is willing to see them.


[I am not saying to stop learning in depth or doing review. But for some reason this kind of fast learning was mentioned by Rav Nahman in is Conversations number 76 as being the main way of learning. He almost seems to de-emphasize learning in depth on purpose. he says to have every day a session in learning with "slight iyun" [lit.,  a small amount of in depth learning.] To me that seems to imply that in fact learning fast was his preferred method for everyone.

[I think you have to say that Torah hidden in the work of Creation is more powerful to help a person come to good character traits than open Torah. In the LeM of Rav Nahman he brings an idea that telling open Torah to a wicked person causes them to become more evil. So the tzadik [saint] has to tell them Torah in a hidden way. There the idea is a about the "secular conversation" of a tzadik, but to me it seems the same principle applies here. The hidden Torah inside of the Work of Creation is what causes people to become better people.]
You can see in Rav Nahman's LeM also that there is not a proportional relationship between learning Torah and good character. So this idea of learning the Hidden Torah in the Work of Creation makes more sense to spend time and energy on.