Didn’t Hume deny the existence of causes? I believe that no particular event or process is a consequence of just one cause for being. That is, if there are numerous elements that make an event or things exist, then there isn’t one cause. It is something like a large swell in the ocean having numerous causal inputs of waves from different directions coinciding, water temperature, windstorms and so forth.
One-third of California’s methane emissions arise from a few super-emitters https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535
Besides that problem, there is the point of view that causality is a subjective, human idea that doesn’t exist in nature itself. With atoms and molecules being ‘frozen’ into a steady state because of quantum symmetry breaking, and those comprising the physical world/Universe of mass-energy, an arbitrary selection and abstract isolation of a local ‘event’ is an unnatural removal of the area-event from the contiguous field in which it exists. In a sense even human perception and identity of particular events (like a tiger running through a jungle) differs from the monistic character of the field-for-itself.
Humans identify events and proximal causes for legal purposes obviously, yet it may be that causality is more of a practical for human-use language item of observation that an actual thing of nature. That is not to say that the things people have to say about nature are not meaningful, it simply acknowledges that some convenient terms that have practical application may not be technically accurate if applied to physics in-itself.
I suppose the word-object relationship is that a rock is a space-time event coordinate. Words are something like addresses. ‘Objects’ are just characteristics of the steady-state of matter field humans perceive, the way humans perceive (as opposed to the way insects or creatures made of neutrinos might perceive) the field.
I.M.O. Religion is more derived from allegiance, a liege-lord, feudalism and to whom one has allegiance. It may be a little like ex-ist, somewhat of a doubling down of a term as if it were a superlative. In its monastic use; of binding. One can discern that it is like the more general usage of allegiance. The term moved synthetically from the secular to the monastery One had a liege-lord whom was sovereign and to whom vassals and servants had allegiance.. The Lord Jesus is a true Lord of course, to monastics.