The "faith in progress and humanity" thing took a huge nosedive after the two world wars. Technology in itself could not solve the heart of the problem, so to speak.
Rorty's point - irrefutable, really, and has been made by many more - is that without an absolute point of reference beyond ourselves, we can't really call anything horrible, evil, bad, good, better, worse with any real meaning. Our moral pronouncements become not much more than saying "I like/dislike broccoli". As a result, "I hate the war", "Child labor is wrong", etc. all become meaningless statements of personal preference that don't have any moral imperative. The Athenians and Putins might disagree with you, and then who decides who is right ... apart from using force?
Another atheist philosopher, Kai Neilsen, had to admit:
"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."
Without a moral reference, that's the tension that our society lives with today. We feel that our personal moral stances are universal, but at the same time we are told by Dawkins et al that everything we say and do are just illusions of evolution, just our DNA talking, for its own "selfish gene" purposes, giving us the illusion of meaning. Even Dawkins rejects his own claim, ironically: he believes his love for his family is "real," not just chemistry. But he can't explain why.
TL; DR: Until we accept an absolute reference, it's just ... feelings ... nothing more than feelings.
However, the mere fact that we are moved by the Great Stories such as LOTR, and feel that love, honor, courage, etc. are "real", is perhaps a clue ...