tl;dr:

• In the long term the easiest way is to be legitimately interested.
• You can become legitimately interested in absolutely anything, it's not even very hard.
• To become legitimately interested in the stuff you're covering in English, you need to find some way to approach it from the margins of your current interests, or from the things you simply don't dislike.

My way of becoming interested in the humanities was:

1. I like movies
2. I like interesting plots
3. I am impressed by the ability of a director to add subtext and themes to support that subtext into an interesting plot without making it less interesting
4. I like trying to fish out subtext from a movie, or reading someone else's analysis of the movie and what they fished out
5. I like reading sparknotes on books I've read to find subtext that other people have found (this is the point at which doing English homework becomes easy/natural)
6. I like reading actual works of fiction, finding subtext and comparing with sparknotes to see what other people found

This isn't part of my comment, but as for writing, becoming interested in writing well, and becoming good at it, my inspiration was StackOverflow and perhaps there is an equivalent for your field. Writing well is a big part of "winning" and being "good" when it comes to communities of knowledge. The creator of those sites does a better job than me at talking about writing as a very important complement to technical skill and knowledge, but don't spend time reading his thoughts, spend time becoming a part of a knowledge community by asking and answering questions in it, and becoming better at that will make you into a good writer.

Heads up number 1: I'm writing this using text to speech so it might sound like a rant and have some unexpected mistakes.
Heads up number 2: this isn't really advice on how to get started, it's more of a guide to convincing yourself to like a subject that you don't.

I know exactly where you're coming from, in high school and the first two years of college I felt exactly the same way you do about the humanities. I like science, its practically useful information, I like being a knowledgeable person, I like the factual side of it. I like understanding how a logical system works and being able to understand the world. I'm saying all of this because I hope that seeing how similar her experiences are, if they do happen to be similar, will get you to believe what I'm saying, and truly invest yourself in believing this advice.

Today, I don't dislike English, reading, writing, whatever aspect of language arts, as they're called, you want to work on. So what changed? Why would you want to change your perspective as well? How much work would it be to change this seemingly fundamental aspect of your persona?

The answer begins with the point that this isn't about English. This isn't about the humanities, language arts, composition, critical reading, or anything else you want to call it. This is about getting interested and getting invested in a subject that you simply don't like.

List of things I would really hate studying in my teenage years: humanities, history, foreign language, philosophy, sociology, business, politics... there's probably a lot more that I can't remember. Basically, anything that wasn't a hard science or otherwise composed of universal truths, I was not interested in.

Today it's hard to think of one subject that I would not study if I had the time. Even if you start listing fairly narrow branches of what academia can get into, I would still have an interest in almost all of them.

What happened? Early twenties of my life happened. I'm guessing some changes in my brain happened. As much time passes between when you're 25 and 15 as the time that passes between when you're 15 and 5. Think about how your interests and ability to get into a subject changes between when you're 5 and 15.

So what's the trick? The trick is that you can get interested in literally anything. If you force yourself to let down your guard for a little bit, force yourself to admit that there might be legitimately interesting things in a subject, force yourself to pretend that you are someone who is interested in the subject, it will eventually click and grow and snowball into what you may call actual interest in the subject.

I know this sounds like bullshit advice from a bullshit age old sage wannabe. Maybe it is. All I can say is that I see myself change after I figured this out. I also noticed that my smartest friends and colleagues had this figured out long before me. It doesn't mean that you can't have preferred subjects or a priority of what you would like to learn about if you could only choose one thing to study right now, which is the reality of being one person. All it means is that you are trying to be the epitome of an open minded person. not open minded to ideas that might run against the grain of your own thinking, but open minded to entire fields of ideas some of which may run against the grain of other ideas in the same field.

So let me cap off this pile of shit that I certainly wouldn't read in my teenage years with some practical help on specifically the subject of English, and the humanities. What really helped me stop being so mentally hostile to the humanities was sparknotes and movie analyses. I like movies which I think most people do, and I like being able to understand the subtext of an interesting movie, which I think many if not most people do. What evantually came to realize in my mid to late twenties is that all of the classic books that I read but had no interest in during high school are not that different from movies with he strongly written subtext. I'm still a little bit too lazy to invest a lot of time hidden trying to build my own thoughts on what subtext A piece of literature or other fiction might hold, but at this point I am completely open to reading someone else's thoughts on the subject. I think this is the path of least resistance to getting into the humanities. Movies are trying to be fun, by nature. Movies want to be interesting, because a lot of directors are sophisticated people who for whatever reason, Lake the practice of inserting subtext into a piece of fiction. They like making things interesting in this one way that our culture seems to put value on. So reading about movies of texts is pretty easy to get interested in, and from that point it's not much of the leap into reading sparknotes on all of the books you've read and reading into the subtext in those books. You stop putting up barriers like the classic question everybody who doesn't like English ask their English teacher: well do we really know if the author was trying to hide all of these symbolisms and whatever in this book? Authorial intent doesn't really matter. If Romeo and Juliet was written by one of an infinite number of monkeys typing on a typewriter, as long as it was the exact same text, there is no more or less meaning in it. It doesn't matter if the source of an interesting idea is someone's intention to be cryptic in their attempt to add an interesting subtext to a plot. What matters is how interesting the idea is to you and to the people in your life. So I strongly recommend reading the sparknotes for a book that you have a strong opinion of being total bullshit. Look at the ideas the people see in the book, regardless of whether they were put there intentionally or not. Think about what separates the ideas that you are receptive to and think are legitimate and the ideas that you are hostile to and things are made up or blown up to be more than they're worth. This is the beginnings of appreciating the humanities.