My quick read of Fish's essay leads me to believe that I do not disagree with a word of his essay.
I can say this much: Stanley Fish does not think that the case for the non-existence of God or the irrationality of religious faith has yet been made by the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christoper Hitchens. (I think one might add to this list: Daniel Dennett, the late Carl Sagan, and the late Stephen Jay Gould. These are men whose faith in the non-existence of God and the irrationality of religious belief knows no bounds.)
Of course, the relationship between evidence and religious faith is not really a new question. For example, the emergence of modern probability theory was accompanied and spurred by rival arguments about the probative value of the miracles reported in the Bible. (Even if the debates now seem curious, it should be noticed that from the standpoint of the problem of uncertain inference, some interesting points were made during these debates.)
In the closing paragraph of his essay Fish states:
Despite what some commentators assumed, I [Stanley Fish] am not taking a position on the issues raised by the three books; readers of this and the previous column have learned nothing about my own religious views, or even if I have any.Fish is a thoroughly liberal fellow -- in the good old-fashioned sense of the word "liberal."