Careful, you're beginning to sound a little like me. Everything you just said I agree with and in my mind, this is the method that Baha'u'llah meant when he encouraged independent investigation. He also taught that the only time that science and religion disagree is when either science is being too materialistic or religion is being too superstitious.
There is a huge difference. You need Baha'u'llah. I don't. In my version of Hinduism, and in fact most versions of Hinduism, you need a LIVING guru, and that is only in the final stages of the soul's evolution, when the soul is actually ready for it, as when a toddler is ready for language, or to walk. Besides, we have reincarnation and from what other Bahais have informed me on this thread, you don't believe in that.
The LIVING Satguru is right there to advise the sishya (student) on the specific help he or she might need in resolving the individual karmas and misunderstandings their unique embodiment of a physical body of this lifetime may have incurred. So it's a phone call or email away, not some hard intellectual study (and quite possible misinterpretation) of some book that was written in some past time when there was a different understanding of the world. The Guru-sishya relationship is right at the core of Hinduism.
So we differ. Yes, as I've learned in this thread, some (but not all, fortunately) Bahais like to suggest the many similarities that just aren't there. But the minute we dig a little below the polite surface of things, we hit all the irreconcilable contradictions, which is fine, especially if you can see it.