Mark,
The majority opinion have a say in what, exactly? As a GCA (or my owners) knowing that most golfers want to see where they are going, whether intrinsically or because JN said it, we tend to design mostly downhill holes. If we don't, a la Tehama, we figure we will get critiqued, a la Whitten.
I think the majority, if it exists, are those golfers playing for score, and not just to experience something different, as many here would do. Can't blame them, esp. if they play for money - theirs or someone elses!
Of course, uphill holes are occaisionally necessary and there are a few ways to do it -
They Olympic Club displays all methods - generally slides down the hill and uses the par 3's to take up grade quickly, and also uses 17 and 18 to gently slide up hill, but leaves 18 well below the clubhouse (Riviera does this too). The par 3's are well defined with bunkers surrounding and small greens, so there isn't much mystery. The lpar 5 17 is a good type of hole to use uphill, since it artificially lengthens the hole. I guess the same could be said of the 18th as a short 4.
Generally speaking, since greens usually have front to back contour of 2% or so, holes can go uphill that grade and still have a visible putting surface, providing hazards are to the sides. (I know the only time I tend to use bunker left/bunker right is to mark uphill greens) I know the Olympic holes go uphill faster than that, but seem to recall you can tell where the pin is from the tee. I wonder if to some degree, that steep 18th green was tipped to the front more for vision?
OT - do you classify the typical Ross hole with tee at, say elevation 200, landing area at 150 and green at 175 as downhill? The beauty of most of those holes was that you could see the flag location while on the tee.