That’s the claim by Paul Thagard at Psychology Today:
In a recent New York Times column, Stephen T. Asma claims that religion can help people to deal with grief much better than science can. His case for religion over science has four flaws. It depends on a view of how emotion works in the brain that has been rendered obsolete by advances in neuroscience. It underestimates how much science can help to understand the nature of grief and to point to ways of overcoming it. It overestimates the consoling power of religion. Finally, it neglects how science can collaborate with philosophy to suggest ways of dealing with grief.
…
Science does not directly address normative questions concerning right, wrong, and the meaning of life, but philosophy can deal with these questions in ways that are well informed by scientific findings. More.
Presumably, the hospital counsellor in this clip, noted in an earlier story, was striving to follow his advice:
Sometimes it becomes clear to people that there is either no meaning in life or the meaning lies beyond this life.
See also: Richard Dawkins is annoyed by Muslim prayer chants; seeks secular chaplains. Come to think of it, we hadn’t heard much from or about Dawkins lately; well, he has certainly fixed that. Francis adds, “Richard gives praise to the Lord (stop laughing, Denyse).” Okay, not laughing. He notes that Dawkins also wants more secular chaplains.