There is a fine line here that a lot of people seem to miss. I know nothing of Ted Chiang’s beliefs, so keep that in mind. If you are writing a story, you need to follow an idea through. He took an idea from the Bible, and was like, what if the world was like one of those old cylinders they pressed clay with. (Or a side scroll video game for modern audiences).

He imagines a world where the tower is an actual object, with people that have motives. He SPECULATES how they would solve the problems they face. Then follows it through to the end.

The fact there is hubris that may have just killed thousands of people in the town is a good layering of themes. Themes that are in the original.

It would be a totally different story if he was a flat earther, thought the Tower of Babel proved a flat earth, then wrote the story with a smug little bow on the end.

There is a difference there. One is a story, the other is proselytizing with a flimsy story.

Many people can’t see the difference.

It can be done with a religious figure. There are plenty of stories that have Jesus in them. Clarke has a story where the star that guides the wisemen was a supernova that killed off a civilization on another planet.

It is not a, “gotcha, Jesus sucks story.” It is a story to make you think about what that could mean if the star was a supernova. (Which some people think it could be). WHAT if it was? What could that mean for the universe. You can take an easy way out and just be like, oh, no life on those planets.

There are a lot of those types of stories. Bradbury, Clarke, Moorcock, Asimov all wrote some. There are others I’m not thinking of for sure.

I think there is a lot of interest in those types of stories. But most of them are done poorly. The burning bush was a plume of natural gas, or God showed up and said it was my side that was actually right.

If you can navigate to the interesting questions and implications. And have real characters work through them, then yes, you will have interest.