Do academics in particular have a moral responsibility to be outspokenly critical of social injustice?

Being an autodidact in philosophy, while academically undertaking a Major in Political Science, can I be considered a philosopher? Not by entitlement, but by the notion that one creates and studies the philosophical world view, as anybody of such a field does regardless of academic degrees. I am so disturbed with some comments that it is only through credentials that one becomes a philosopher, that I would would like to defy and counter this confined notion by proving that it is, indeed, not the only means. Thus I require supporting views on this topic. So, once again, can I be considered a philosopher whilst also being an autodidact?

Everyone agrees that slavery is evil. Everyone knows that slavery existed. Is there any understanding of why it existed? Is it just because people were too ignorant/greedy to see the problem with it? I have heard that Karl Marx has a theory that slavery was necessary (and evil in the same time) because every society needs some sort of forced labor. Nowadays, technology is our source of forced labor, but when technology was very primitive, slavery played the role of the required forced labor. Does such a theory (or anything somehow similar to this) exist? If yes, what is the reasoning behind it.

Is teaching young children religion child abuse? Should a child's mind be programmed from birth based upon a parents blind faith in something? Shouldn't a child be allowed to eventually grow into their own religion as opposed to being automatically grouped into one based on the geographical location of the hospital they were born in.

Would an omnipotent and omniscient being be bound by the laws of logic? If so, to what degree?

Is computer science a "science" in the same way as the natural sciences? Sometimes I think it more closely resembles math, in that the kind of reasoning it is engaged in is in some sense a priori.

Recently someone asked a question about the existence or non existence of god and miracles. Basically they were asking how, if an event occurs in space time, could we ever consider that event a miracle, since being in space time the event would have an identifiable cause and therefore could not be considered a miracle. The answer to me seems to be readily apparent, and I wanted to see what you thought. That is, a miracle by analytic reasoning seems to me to be something that does not occur in space time. So the problem is solved simply by observing that if an event occurs in space time then analytically and a priori we know it is not a miracle, just as a married man is analytically and a priori not a bachelor. Of course a better answer would simply be to point out that the use of metaphors like "miracle" may just be a quite ineffective use of words, since it tempts us to hypothesize about objects that can never be given in experience and that, I agree with Kant, is the ultimate no-no! :)

In many answers, here, philosophers talk about justified beliefs. I would like to ask if there is any difference between a justified belief and a rational belief.

How can a theist respond to the problem of evil in the specific case of mental illness? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows that mental illness causes suffering, and is able to prevent it, but chooses not to. For an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god to exist, there must be a morally justifying-reason to permit this suffering. The usual theistic responses to the problem of evil do not seem to apply in the specific case of mental illness. The free will defence fails because mental illness actually suppresses free will; therefore, if God really valued free will, he would prevent mental illness. The soul-making theodicy fails because mental illness actually deprives sufferers of their ability to comprehend their existence in relation to God and His creation; therefore, if God really valued spiritual growth, He would prevent mental illness. It also won't do to say that the suffering of the mentally ill gives others the chance to be morally good, because the pharmaceutical companies...

I am wondering if there is a flaw in the following reasoning: If an event occurs, then that event now becomes possible and able to reoccur. If the event can reoccur, then the event is not "super natural" nor is the event a "miracle". Therefore, there is no possibly way for the "supernatural" or "miracles" to exist. If there are no "supernatural" things or "miracles" that exist, then there is no God. I find that the argument is weird because the criteria eliminates the possibility of what is in question in the first place: the "supernatural" or the "miracle". Basically if something does not fit into the science mold the arguer won't allow the conversation to continue. I can ask "What would God have to do to convince you he exists?" The honest answer I received was "He can't do anything to prove himself!" The reason is because as soon as God acts in a physical way, there is a scientific explanation. So if God were to levitate the entire state of Texas in the sky 15,000 feet for 7 days this is not...