Bottom line: You are right. But in a historical context, he is saying something we can understand. He is saying that claims by both the Catholic theologians (scholastics) and their new opponents, the deists, that what they call God can be known by reason and logic is wrong and futile. Reason is too weak, and he spends his career trying to demonstrate that. And so, the only alternative is faith, believing what you wish to believe without reference to facts or logic, or as Ayn Rand put it, "the claim to a non-rational, non-sensory form of knowledge." This is an important aspect of the Enlightenment because the reigning, absolute monopoly of the Catholic Church over all education is being challenged not only the the science and reason of the Enlightenment, but by a new-old approach to religion, fideism or pure faith. It is part of the story. And also important because when the intellectuals of the Enlightenment set themselves squarely against Christianity, to de-Christianize Europe, they borrowed very heavily from Bayle's attacks on the "reasoned," "factual," "historical" arguments claimed by theologians. In effect, Bayle armed the Enlightenment intellectuals in their attack on Catholic and other theology in the name of reason--as Bayle had attacked in the name of restoring "faith."

I think people who try to 'explain' God are wasting their breath. Who cares what 'they' think about religion? We all have our preferences.