The kind of skepticism that comes from modern empiricism is very different from classical dialectic, which was at least directed at some Good. Postmodern skepticism isn't really skepticism in the classical sense, just a corrosive estrangement of the self from reality (c.f. Love and the Postmodern Predicament).

> Religions are man-made fictions.

Why not apply the same skepticism to that claim? What's it based on? A rigorous dialectic proving the non-existence of God, or a premise based on lack of evidence?

The point of divine revelation is that our starting point as humans absolutely is skepticism of the worst kind. But God breaks into that reality in a way we can understand — word, person, symbol, and sacrament. True faith has to be placed in something external to the self — it's an acceptance of God's spoken word and work, not a retreat from reality.

I grant that the truth is obscured by many competing ideas, narratives, distortions, etc. But the lack of clarity doesn't imply an absence of truth.