I guess you are thinking of playing the odds? If so many people don't think it is true, that lessens the odds that it is true? If something is true, it is true. The numbers of people do not affect that.
I think I see your point, that it is impossible for a single person to read and assess everything that has been written on religious truth claims since time immemorial. So he has to figure out some way to assess the validity of the various claims . . . Going with "majority opinion" may seem to be a strategy?
For you, I don't think that would be the preferred strategy, since you like to inform yourself and assess things and have the ability to do so . . .
When reason is employed in areas *without science* (I.E. when you make no attempt to collect or collate evidense, just going on assumptions and the like), then it is still guesswork, even if more educated. However, there is simply no area of interest or endeavor which science cannot be of considerable value.
There is no physical evidence to be collected and evaluated when you are dealing with something which is not physical/material. You would not want to follow guesswork but use logic and other tools of reason which are available to the study of metaphysics, philosophy, etc. There is an intellectual rigor to these disciplines, just no physical evidence and in that sense not verifiable by science.
Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel prize for his equations used in Quantum Mechanics) were convinved that reality exists. Schrödinger had a metaphysical bent. I don't know what if any religion he practiced . . .
Intellectually based (i.e. resulting from a search for truth) conversions to Catholicism include Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, etc. They were already Christian, as was for example John Cardinal Newmann. I don't know where e.g. Chesterton, E. Waugh came from. I don't know if you are really interested or merely being disputatious :)!
AARGH running late! Have to dash! Where DOES time GO - now there is a question!