So the fact there was no flood, no Noah and no god doesn't mean that the story isn't useful.
There is no factuality in denying either the flood, Noah, or God.
What I am saying is that there is no benefit in questioning the factuality of the story, because that is not the basis for its validity/veracity.
Focusing on the falsehood of the super being in the story book misses the point that we can still learn someone from it.
That's correct, but there is no falsehood in God, only in your assumptions about the meaning and nature of existence that limits your understanding of how God can in fact exist.
Climate change scientists should read this inspirational work of fiction.
It is not a work of fiction but rather a work of theology. You, like many people, are obsessed with distinguishing fact from fiction; but that undermines theology's ability to fully exercise the power of Truth, which it should.
The story of the boy who cried wolf isn't fiction, for example, because it is a general description of what happens when you lie repeatedly, and that makes it a true story at a general level.
Fiction would be if the boy who cried wolf ended up telling the truth about the real wolf and everyone believed him nevermind all the times he lied about fake wolves.