What is needed to combat the overwhelming level of belief in God?

[Mudhammam]

I have a question.

As many of you admit, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God works best for those that already have a propensity to believe in God (raised that way, exposed through family or friends, or an evangelist ministry of some kind that resonated with them or met their needs in other ways). In that way, the arguments provide affirmation of what they believe to be true from other sources.

I have seen first hand, that apologetics in the last 10 years is on a HUGE upswing in churches. Almost every church has a periodic class or a study looking through the philosophical arguments, reviewing those things that science can't explain, picking apart scientism and pointing out the logical implications of such a belief system. It is great sport to pick apart Dawkins and other spokesmen of the "New Atheist" movement. I wonder if Dawkins et al efforts have not actually been counter-productive and instead galvanized the church into much needed education. 

If 90% of the world believes in God and 31% (and growing) are Christians, it seems that your "there is no evidence for God" theme is not getting out. Include the above observation that the philosophical arguments will be more effective in this group anyway, and it seems unlikely to change. I am not mocking you, I simply want to know what you think will happen in the future. Do you think science will provide some sort of answer(s) to combat the huge imbalance (it sure doesn't look like it is going to be philosophy)? If science, what things in particular might make a difference?

What believers consider to be "philosophical arguments" that serve to "provide affirmation" is similar to the way that Fox News affirms for a segment of conservative voters certain stereotypes and prejudices. You may possess these stereotypes and prejudices due to similar "other sources," and then you see "news reports" and what appear to be intelligent pundits and politicians offering facts and arguments which seem to lend support to your view. But, of course, Fox News is never fully truthful or rarely straight news, just as "philosophical arguments for God" are never valid and sound philosophical arguments. In both cases what is needed are greater doses of reality, more attention paid to detail, and of course, following the rules of demonstration by sticking to valid deductions and sound inferences, proportioning your confidence in the belief at hand to the evidence you have to support it. As this would require human beings to operate at a level that most are simply unwilling or incapable of doing, the ignorance that is conducive to religiosity is never going away.