Belief is incompatible with science; the whole point of belief is that you make that Leap of Faith, you jump into the unknown without evidence. Reason doesn't work with bellief.
The only real antidote I have ever come across is to focus one belief onto another belief, so you can start as CofE and move onto Buddhism, but it's much harder to ditch a faith-based belief and have nothing to replace it. Those that do are often ime hard-line atheists, and can easily become zealots, 'preaching' atheism or over-compensating for their change in belief in some other way - sneering at those who continue in the old belief, or feeling anger towards tehm etc.
I think if Science can be framed within a kind of ideology which is in some way faith-based then there's a chance that some sort of conversion could take place. I really don't think there's much success to be had if we continue to see it as a simple 'belief vs reason' struggle. I'm not sure it would be that difficult in fact; I believe in evidence, in facts, in the scientific method; I believe these are self-evidently better than what was around before the Enlightenment, or whatever. I was brought up Catholic and most of my relatives still are. They all display some sort of cognitive dissonance which they see as their cross to bear, the fact that they have to include me in family celebrations is hard for many of them, but they 'offer it up to Jesus', it's the sacrifice they make in order to feel better about themselves.
I do think it's possible to present Science as a belief system, in spite of that Judge ruling that it wasn't. Does a ruling against TRAs/MRAs stop them? No. So we could ignore that Judge and insist that Science including Biology is actually a belief system; the problem is that that would be inconsistent with what Science is, so we can't really do it and retain the integrity of the scientific method. It's a bummer.