The real problem with those who go on about separate magisteria is that they are emitting words that sound impressive to them and that associate vaguely to some sort of even vaguer intuition, but they are not doing anything that would translate into thinking, let alone coherent thinking.

Erm... I agree with you? I don't think the term magisteria is an accurate description of what they believe:

This is flat wrong and doesn't accurately describe the theology/cosmology of most theists, but it helps when using the concept of magisteria. Personally, I don't think the term magisteria is completely useful in this context.

"Magisteria" doesn't do anything useful. People have been using the word to describe why theists think God is "above" empirical results.

Then the natural can perceive the supernatural but not vice versa. To perceive something is to be affected by it.

Blarg. This is a semantic war. "Affect," in this case has nothing to do with perception. Don't forget that these people are not working with the same framework. I am not trying to defend the framework or even that I am claiming it for myself. I am only trying to help explain something.

I'm sorry to be brutal about this, but nothing I have ever heard anyone say about "separate magisteria" has ever been conceptually coherent let alone consistent.

There's just one magisterium, it's called reality; and whatever is, is real. It's a silly concept. It cannot be salvaged. Kill it with fire.

Yeah, okay, I am with you. I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I am advocating separate magisteria. You don't have to apologize for being brutal; I am confused that it seems directed at me.