Quote:
see both fundamentalist and atheist as two sides of the same coin
I think this view hinges on a strawman of the atheist position*. "Atheism" is usually defined as an absence of belief, which would also be its original Greek meaning.
Also, being rule-bound isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially where you are concerned with justifying your beliefs.
The problem is not so much that people are rule bound as it is that they don't tolerate mistakes in others, are not open to questioning, and have little tolerance for nuance (e.g., "black and white").
*Most people think the atheist argument is "there's no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist."
In actuality, atheists generally argue three things:
1) There's no evidence for gods, so theism cannot be justified on epistemic grounds.
2) There is evidence, not proof, against the existence of gods; so while the existence of gods cannot be entirely disproved, it is epistemically unlikely.
3) The existence of a god can in fact be ruled out if defined in such a way as to imply a contradiction (e.g., God is both omnipresent and non-spatial).