Yes. This is absolutely true. But a legacy of the reformation was the fracturing of protestantism into multiple competing strands, many of which rehearsed more and more atheistic principles as they diverged from the 39 articles, at least in the english speaking world.
By the time we arrive at quakers, we're a long way down the path to utilitarianism and a pretty overt statement of the lack of need of a deity to live a good live. But this is not the reformation, or the counter-reformation, its the enlightenment.
I suppose my point was more about the enlightenment than anything else. Which is definedly NOT about the reformation, but stems from it: I would argue there is no good evidence of a counterfactual of an enlightenment like the one we have emerging in a world without protestantism in its current form.
I should add this is not a direct 'anti-scientism' accusation to the catholic church: The church was extremely receptive to scientific method and proof methods. It wasn't so into the democratic tendency that came with it. So I believe without the liberation inherent in the reformation (the liberation from widely held belief in the authority of the state and the church) we'd not be where we are.
The taking of oaths was a significant component of why people were outside the state process, and faith, inherent in the 39 articles: you couldn't swear alliegence to the crown of england without explicitly accepting its authority in religion. Neither catholics nor dissenters liked this. Perhaps this is the perpetuation of the belief in the importance of an Oath, from medieval times? (this was the blockage on catholic participation in government which persisted for years after the enlightenment had begun)