Perhaps the most important feature of a naive cognitivism is that religious statements are not categorized differently from other cognitive statements. God, cats, souls, bodies, minds, other people, chairs, electrons, and novels are all part of the same reality. A sophisticated naive cognitivism is able to interrelate with holders of other world views and dispassionately discuss the differences in perception and understanding that such world-views entail. This does not mean it is the only tenable position, but it means that one must cease humanistic endeavor first if one wants to take a different position with respect to understanding a particular religious statement. The following I take to be fundamental tenets of the study of the humanities.
All people are to be taken seriously, and are to be assumed to understand their own motivations.
It amounts to a declaration that when people make cognitive religious statements, they are unable to recognize their own internal states. Ultimately, non-cognitive theories are dismissive of people who make cognitive religious statements. Now, it may be so that a non-cognitive theory is in fact best. My point is simply that a non-cognitive theory is offensive and dismissive. This does not make the theory false.